UC-NRLF 


*B    b3M    15b 


[1 


•  'tUiiU 


m 


it 


m 


lllluli 


cX(  2 

MARYLAND 


TAX    DIGEST 


BY 

A.  B.  CUNNINGHAM 

judge;  of  the  appeal  tax  court  of4  Baltimore  city 


J  M>1 


•  »        •-        1        •       •  • 


•  »  V   »     •• 


1    » 


*  '• 


1       ~>        •    •••..».••.»..    •    ■»      » 


•  •  ».     »  •  •   a    •  ,» 


BALTIMORE  : 

M.  CURLANDER, 

LAW   BOOKSELLER,   PUBLISHER  AND  IMPORTER. 

1914. 


COPYRIGHT,    1 91 4 
M.    CURLANDBR 


'2  «•' 

•  < 


v  1    ■ 


v*    '   '  ■'  •    t'  *  \     *    ' 

1 


PREFACE. 

This  Digest  of  the  opinions  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  con- 
tained in  the  Maryland  Reports  to  the  year  1914,  including 
121  Md.,  is  published  with  the  hope  that  it  may  be  utilized, 
in  a  measure,  by  the  tax  authorities  of  the  state,  and  by  the 
legal  profession,  as  a  ready  reference  book  of  some  value. 

As  will  be  noted,  the  subjects  are  classified  alphabetically 
for  convenient  reference,  and  it  is  hoped  that  this  arrange- 
ment will  meet  with  the  approval  of  those  who  may  use 
the  volume. 

The  Digest  is  almost  necessarily  limited  in  bulk,  as  the 
field  which  it  has  sought  to  cover  comprises  only  one  gen- 
eral subject.  The  compiler  trusts,  however,  that  those  who 
may  have  occasion  to  fully  examine  its  pages,  will  find  that 
all  the  vital  and  momentous  tax  issues  in  the  state  which 
have  found  their  final  settlement  in  the  Court  of  Appeals 
have  been  fairly  well  presented. 

The  compiler  has  endeavored,  in  digesting  a  number  of  the 
more  wide-reaching  decisions,  to  reproduce,  in  brief,  salient 
passages,  the  identical  language  used  by  the  Court,  it  being 
quite  clear  that  this  would  be  more  illuminative  of  the  judi- 
cial meaning  than  a  mere  syllabus  would  be. 

In  view  of  the  exceptionally  important  character  of  the 
tax  legislation  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  at  the  ses- 
sion of  1914,  none  of  which  has  yet  been  given  wide  pub- 
licity, a  number  of  these  Acts  have  been  printed  in  the  Ap- 
pendix to  the  Digest. 


313156 


THE   FIFTEENTH   ARTICLE   OF   THE   MARYLAND 
DECLARATION  OF  RIGHTS. 

The  fundamental  basis  of  taxation  in  Maryland  is  Article 
15  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights.  It  is  the  standard  by  which 
all  the  tax  legislation  of  the  commonwealth  had  been  meas- 
ured since  1776.  To  the  Judiciary  of  the  State  it  has  been 
what  the  North  Star  was  to  the  ancient  mariner — a  never 
failing  guide  and  monitor.  The  proviso  that  "every  person 
in  the  state  ought  to  contribute  his  proportion  of  public 
taxes  for  the  support  of  government  according  to  his  actual 
worth  in  real  and  personal  property  within  the  state"  has 
been  from  the  beginning  and  still  remains  the  keystone  to 
the  great  arch  of  our  taxation  and  revenue  system.  As  will 
be  noted  by  the  student  of  our  Judicial  records,  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  "Article  Fifteen"  threads  all  the  important 
tax  decisions  of  our  Court  of  Appeals.  In  this  connection  it 
is  curious,  from  a  historical  point  of  view,  to  note  that  in 
the  case  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Gill,  50  Md.  377,  ap- 
pellant's counsel,  Mr.  Charles  J.  M.  Gwinn,  attributed  the 
inspiration  of  Article  Fifteen  to  Adam  Smith,  whose 
"Wealth  of  Nations"  was  first  published  in  the  early  part 
of  1776,  and  in  which  occurred  the  following  maxim:  "The 
subjects  of  every  state  ought  to  contribute  towards  the  sup- 
port of  the  government,  as  nearly  as  possible,  in  proportion 
to  their  respective  abilities ;  that  is,  in  proportion  to  the 
revenue  which  they  respectively  enjoy  under  the  protection 
of  the  state."  The  striking  similarity  in  the  language  of  the 
two  passages  would  certainly  suggest  a  common  origin. 


TABLE  OF  CASES 


Alexander  v.  Baltimore,  12,  143. 
Allegany  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  Mining  Co., 

14. 
Allegany    Co-    v.    Union    Mining 

Co.,  83,  125. 

Allen  v.  Harford  Co.,  101,  136. 

Allen  v.  State,    126. 

Amer.  Casualty  Ins  Co.'s  Case,  84, 

85. 
Amer.  Coal  Co.   v.  Allegany  Co., 

2,  31,  98,  148. 
Anne  Arundel  Co-  v.  Balto.  Sugar 

Co.,  69,  98. 
Anne  Arundel  Co.  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  68. 
Appeal    Tax    Court    v.    Cemetery 

Co.,  33,  120. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Gill,  26,  68, 

72,  147. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Grand  Lodge, 

23. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  N.  C.  R.  R. 

Co.,  106,  115. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Patterson,  57, 

J2,    III,    120. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  P.  W.  &  B. 

R.  R.  Co.,  115. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Pullman  Co., 

115,  144. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Rice,  46,  48, 

136. 
Appeal  Tax   Court  v.   St.   Peter's 

Academy,  68,  69,  147. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Union  R.  R. 

Co.,  59- 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Univ.  of  Md., 

139. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  W.  M.  R.  R. 

Co.,  2,  134,  137,  189. 

2,   134,  137,   189. 
Baden  v.   Perkins,  95. 
Baker  v.  Baker,  50. 
Baldwin  v.  State,  79,  161. 
Baldwin  v.  Washington    Co.,    106. 


Baltimore  v.  Allegany  Co.,  88,  147, 

152. 
Baltimore  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co., 

16,  115. 
Baltimore  v.  Balto-  City  Pas.  Ry. 

Co.,  97,  157- 
Baltimore  v.  Bonaparte,   10. 
Baltimore  v.  Canton  Co.,  45,   136, 

160. 
Baltimore  v.  Cemetery  Co.,  51,  69, 

157. 

Baltimore  v.  Chester  River   S.   S. 
Co.,  2,   166,  181. 

Baltimore  v.  Consolidated     Gas 
Co.,  74. 

Baltimore  v.  Gail,  6,  24,  64. 

Baltimore  v.  Gill,  66,  123. 

Baltimore  v.  Gittings,  64,  83,   108. 

Baltimore  v.  Grand  Lodge,  68. 

Baltimore  v.  Hanson,  11. 

Baltimore  v.  Harris,  6,  25. 

Baltimore  v.  Harvey,  9,  51,  171. 

Baltimore  v.  Howard,    137. 

Baltimore  v.  Hurlock,  31,   67,  80, 
105. 

Baltimore  v.  Hussey,  50. 

Baltimore  v.  Jenkins,  33,   112. 

Baltimore  v.  Johns  Hopkins  Hos- 
pital, 12,  127. 

Baltimore  v.  Johnson,    155,    176. 

Baltimore  v.  Knell,  7,  183. 

Baltimore  v.  Lefferman,   169,   171. 

Baltimore  v.  Poole,  3,   107,  137. 

Baltimore  v.  Raymo,   131. 

Baltimore  v.  Rosenthal,  5,  28,  29. 

Baltimore  v.  Safe   Dep.   Co.,    119, 
183. 

Baltimore  v.  Schafer,  25. 

Baltimore  v.  Starr  Church,  69,  87. 

Baltimore  v.  State,   176. 

Baltimore  v.  Sterling,  183. 

Baltimore  v.  Stewart,   152. 

Baltimore  v.  Ulman,    13,    152. 


Vlll 


Table  of  Cases 


B.  &  E.  S.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Spring,  172. 
B.  C.  &  A.  Ry  Co.  v.  Ocean  City. 

70.     . 

B.  C.  &  A.   Ry.  Co.  v.  Wicomico 

Co.,  49,  70,  105,  H3,  133,  140,  143. 
Baltimore  County  v.  Md.  Hospital 

for  Insane,  82. 
Baltimore  County  v.   Winand,    3, 

124. 
Bank  of   Baltimore  v.   Baltimore, 

22,  176. 
Bank  v.  Earle,  141. 
Barnett  v.  Dickinson,  140. 
Bassett   v.    Ocean   City,    137,    151, 

152. 
Baumgardner  v.  Fowler,  52,  161. 
Benzinger  v.  Gies,  53,  162. 
Blakistone  v.  State,  65,  135. 
Boggs  v.  Inter-American  Co.,  70. 
Bonaparte  v.  State,  3.  51,  114,  157, 

158. 
Brooks  v.  Baltimore,  12. 
Burgess  v.  Pue,  14. 
Carstairs  v.  Cochran,  57,  120,  J 21. 

163. 
Central  Ga.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Eichberg. 

70. 
Chauvenet   v.   Anne   Arundel   Co., 

68. 

C.  &  P.  Tel  Co.  v.  Allegany  Co.,  Q. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago. 

80. 

Clark  Distilling  Co.  v.  Cumber- 
land, 146,   148. 

Cleaveland  v.  Mullin,  27. 

Cons.  Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  1,  10, 
25,  60,  61,  80,  100,  160,  176. 

Consumer's  Ice  Co.  v.  State.  184. 

Corry  v.  Baltimore,  71,  72,  107. 

Coulston  v.  Baltimore,  7,  29,  182. 

Crown  Cork  &  Seal  Co.  v.  State, 
116,  147,  160. 

Cumberland  &  Pa.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  78,  86. 

Daly  v.  Morgan,  173. 

Dashiell  v.  Baltimore.  137. 

Degner  v.  Baltimore,  94. 

Desmare  v.  United  States,  141. 


Dewing  v.  Perdicaries,   147. 

Dolan   v.   Baltimore,  32. 

Dugan  v.  Baltimore,  2. 

Dundalk  &c.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Smith,  60. 

Duvall   v.   Perkins,    162. 

Dyer  v.   Boswell,  161. 

Electric  Light  Co,  v.  Frederick,  63. 

Emory  v.   State,  46.  47,  49. 

Ensor  v.  Graff,   140. 

Eschbach  v.  Pitts,  117. 

Faust  v.  Build.  Asso.,  31,  108. 

Farrington  v.  Tennessee.  147. 

Fidelity    Co.    v.    Charles    County, 

27,  187. 
Fidelity  Sav.  Bk.  v.  State,  145. 
Firemen's    Ins.    Co.    v.    Baltimore, 

96,   15*. 
Fisher  v.  State.  36. 
Fowble  v.  Kemp,  57.  163. 
Frederick  Co.  v.  Bank,  20. 
Frederick  Co.  v.  Clagett,  5. 
Frederick  Co.  v.  Frederick.  50,  102, 

153.    176. 

Frederick  Co.  v.  Sisters  St.  Joseph, 
15.  23,  116. 

Frown  felter  v.  State,  26,  124. 

George's  Creek  Co.  v.  Allegany 
Co.,  50.  169,  172. 

Gittings  v.  Baltimore,  64,  84. 

Goodsell  v.  Lawson,  122. 

Gordon   v.   Baltimore,   19. 

Gould  v.  Baltimore,  it.  142.  165. 

Graham  v..  Harford  Co.,  91. 

Gunther  v.  Baltimore.  184. 

Hagerstown  v.  Startzman.  it.  142. 

Hamburger  v.   Baltimore.  48.   T05. 

Hammond  v.  O'Hara.  I,  2. 

Hannis  Distilling  Co..  v.  Balti- 
more, 70.   163,   164. 

Hanover  Water  Co.  v.  Ashland 
Iron   Co.,   80. 

Harding  v.  American  Glucose  Co., 
70. 

Harris  v.  Pue.   140. 

Hebb  v.  Moore,   i6t,  t66. 

Hess  v.   Muir.   122. 

Hill  v.  Williams.   126.   156.  157. 

Hiss  v.   Baltimore.  24.    132. 


Table  of  Cases 


IX 


Holland  v.  Baltimore,  04. 
Hooper  v.  Baltimore,  184,  185. 
Hopkins  v.  Baker,  75,  88. 
Hopkins  v.  State,  184. 
Hopkins  v.  Van  Wyck,  48,  67,  112. 
Horn   Silver  Mining  Co.  v.  State 

of   New   York,   70. 
Howell  v.  State,  154,  184,  185. 
Hull  v.  South.  Dev.  Co-,  41,  147, 

148. 
Hutchinson  v.  Ins.  Co.,  85. 
Hyattsville  v.   Smith,   108,   151. 
Jeiitt  &  Newark,  117. 
Joesting    v.    Baltimore,    8,   64,    65, 

75- 

Kerr  v.  State,  14. 
Kinehart  v.  Howard,  138,  150,  188. 
Koontz  v.  Hancock,  94. 
Langhammer  v.  Munter,  141. 
Latrobe  v.  Baltimore,  58,   183. 
Lauer  v.  Baltimore,  10,   II,   143. 
Laurenson  v.  State,  26. 
Leser  v.  Wagner,  12,  65,  108,  117. 
Lester  v.  Baltimore,  169,  170,  172. 
Louis.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Letson,  141. 
Margraff  v.  Cunningham,  161. 
Marine  Bank  v.  Heller,  65. 
Massachusetts  v.   Provident   Inst., 

144. 

McCutchen  v.  Rice  Co.,  141. 

McMahon  v.  Crean,  162. 

Md.  Tube  Works  v.  Imp.  Co.,  27. 

Mitchell  v.  United  States,  141. 

Moale  v.  Baltimore,  12. 

Mofrett  v.  Calvert  County,  66. 

Montague  v.  State,  37. 

Monticello  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  31, 
50,  56,  57-  107,  136,  160,  163. 

Morgan  v.  Parham,   185. 

Morris  v.  Baltimore,  171. 

Murphy  v.  Wheatley,  27. 

Murray  v.   Charleston,    no. 

Musgrove  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.. 
101,  134.  176. 

Myers  v.  Baltimore  County,  32. 

Nat.  Shutter  Bar  Co.  v.  Zimmer- 
man, 27. 

Nicodemus  v.  Hull,  13. 


Nugent  v.  Bates,  141. 
Oberlander  v.  Emmel,   139. 
O.  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  141. 
Old   Dominion   S.   S.  Co.  v.   Vir- 
ginia, 185. 
O'Neal  v.  Va.  Bridge  Co.,  9,  30. 
Owner's  Realty  Co.  v.  Baltimore, 

Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Seibert,  73. 

Painter  v.  Mattfeldt,  66. 

Parlett  v.  Dugan,  94,  182. 

Perkins  v.  Dyer,  127. 

Peter  v.  Prettyman,  123. 

P.  W.  &  B.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Appeal 
Tax  Court,  61,  133. 

P.  B.  &  W.  R.  R.  v.  Baltimore,  II. 

Power  Co.  v.  Havre  de  Grace,  104. 

Prince  George's  Co.  v.  Clarke,  65. 

Prop,  of  Meeting  House  v.  Lowell, 
23,   116. 

Provident  Inst.  v.  Mass.,  144. 

R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  34. 

Reeside  v.  Peter,  157. 

Richardson  v.  Simpson,  161,  163. 

St.  Mary's  Ind.  School  v.  Brown, 
172. 

Salisbury  Build.  Asso.  v.  Wicomi- 
co Co.,  188. 

Salisbury  v.  Jackson,   100,  153. 

Sams  v.  Fisher,  8,  24,  126,  137. 

Schaeffer  v.  Gilbert,  138,  139,  142. 

Schley  v.  Montgomery  Co.,  27,  99, 
176. 

Short  v.   State,   178. 
I  Shultz  v.  Houck,   140. 

Simpson   v.   Hopkins,   30,   42,    126, 
181. 

Sindall  v.   Baltimore,  132.     . 

Skinner   Dry    Dock   Co.    v.    Balti- 
more, 48,  85,  112,  179. 

Smith  v.  Baltimore,  29,  30. 

Smith  v.  School  Commrs.,  60. 

Smith    Fireproof    Co.   v.    Munroe, 

T22. 

Stanley  v.  Safe  Dep.  Co.,  139. 
State  v.  Applegarth,  94. 
State  v.  ft.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.,  T7,  175. 
State  v.  Balto.   Cemetery   Co..  68. 


Table  of  Cases 


State  v-  Carroll,  93. 

State  v.  Cent.  Sav.  Bk.,  145. 

State  v.  C  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.,  34, 

77- 

State  v.  Dalrymple,  36. 

State  v.  Ger.  Sav.  Bk,   145. 

State  v.  Horner,   14. 

State  v.  Mayhew,   21. 

State  v.  N.  C.  R.  &.  Co.,   16, 

38, 

60. 

State  v.  P.  W.  &  B.  R.  R.  Co., 

72, 

78,   144. 

State  v.  Safe  Deposit  Co.,  49. 
State  v.  Savings  Bank,  56.  79. 
State  v.  Sterling,  54,  55,  56,  79- 
State  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  Co.,  73. 
Stoddert  v.  Ward,  58,  66,  140,  142. 
Swan  v.  Kemp,  60. 
Tax  Cases,   19,  42,   101,    120,    136, 

159- 
Taylor  v.  Forrest,  162. 

Tidewater  Canal  Co.  v.  Archer,  80. 

Tome  Institute  v.  Crothers,   122. 

Turner  v.  Crosby.   141. 

Tyson  v.  State,  36. 


Union  Trust  Co.  v.  State,  31,  43, 

48,  92. 
United  Railways  v-  Baltimore,  6o, 

68,  187. 

U.  S.  Elec.  Power  &  Light  Co.  v. 

State,  58,  77,  120,  148. 
Valentine  v.  Hagerstown,  102. 
Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  68. 
Vogler  v.  Geiss,  140. 
W.  M.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  91, 

122. 
Walker  v.  Jack,  72. 
Wannenwetch    v.    Baltimore,    108, 

137- 
Watson  v.  Watson.  4. 
Webster  v.  Balto.  County,   124. 
Weller  v.  Mueller,  65. 
Wells  v.  Hyattsville,   150. 
Westminster  v.  Westminster  Sav. 

Bk.,  145. 
Wheeler  v.  Addison,  166. 
Wilkens  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  15,  21, 

69,  160. 


MARYLAND  TAX  DIGEST 


Abatements.  Whenever  any  person  shall  make  applica- 
tion for  an  allowance  or  deduction  on  account  of  the  sale, 
transfer,  alienation,  loss  or  removal  of  any  property,  or 
the  collection  or  payment  of  any  public  or  private  security 
for  money,  the  County  Commissioners  or  Appeal  Tax 
Court  shall  interrogate  him  on  oath  in  reference  there- 
to and  the  disposal  of  the  same,  and  especially  inquire  of 
him  to  whom  the  same  has  been  sold  or  transferred,  and  the 
amount  of  the  purchase  money  or  the  money  collected 
and  how  the  same  has  been  invested.  Code  1911,  Art.  81, 
sec.  16;  Baltimore  City  Charter,  sees.  156  and  157. 

Accuracy  of  Assessments  Presumed.  Presumptions  are 
in  favor  of  the  correctness  of  assessments.  Consolidated 
Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  101  Md.  5#9. 

In  accordance  with  the  universal  presumption  in  favor 
of  the  regularity  and  validity  of  official  acts,  tax  assess- 
ments, made  in  the  line  of  official  duty,  are  presumably  cor- 
rect, and  the  burden  of  showing  the  contrary  is  upon  the 
person  claiming  to  be  aggrieved.  Accordingly,  it  will  be  pre- 
sumed that  proper  notice  was  given ;  that  a  correct  method 
of  valuation  was  used,  and  that  a  fair  valuation  was  placed 
on  the  property.  27  Amer.  and  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law  {2d  Edi- 
tion), p.  728.  (Quoted  by  Court  in  Con.  Gas  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, 101  Md.  559.) 

> 

Actions  to  Recover  Taxes.  If  the  appellees  are  liable  to 
be  taxed  as  owners  of  the  property,  a  duty  has  arisen  upon 


2  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  assessment  made  to  pay  the  taxes  levied,  and  such  duty 
could  be  enforced  by  an  action  at  law,  as  upon  an  implied 
assumpsit  notwithstanding  the  repeal  of  the  Statute  of  1876, 
Ch.  260.    Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  W.  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Md.  295. 

The  failure  of  the  Tax  Collector  to  deliver  to  the  delin- 
quent  tax  payer  an  account  of  his  assessment  within  the  time 
limited  by  law  did  not  affect  the  suit  for  unpaid  taxes. 
Dugan  v.  Baltimore,  1  G.  &  J.  499. 

Whenever  the  law  makes  it  the  duty  of  a  corporation  to 
pay  the  tax  on  shares  of  stock  the  obligation  may  be  enforced 
by  legal  action.  American  Coal  Co.  v.  Allegany  County, 
59  Md.  185. 

To  entitle  the  collector  of  the  county  tax  to  recover  in  his 
own  right,  from  a  taxable  inhabitant,  the  amount  of  his 
assessment,  such  collector  must  show  that  the  taxes  placed 
in  his  hands  for  collection  had  been  paid  over  to  the  persons 
in  whose  favor  levies  had  been  made,  or  adduce  some  proof 
showing  that  he  had  furnished  such  evidence  to  the  proper 
tribunal  for  adjusting  his  accounts.  The  circumstance,  that 
an  account  presented  by  a  collector  to  the  Levy  Court,  was 
by  that  Court,  filed  in  the  clerk's  office,  is  no  evidence  that 
the  Levy  Court  adopted  it.  Hammond  v.  O'Hara,  2  H.  &  G. 
111. 

Code,  Art.  81,  Sec.  70,  provides  that  taxes  shall  be 
in  arrears  on  the  first  of  January  next  following  the  levy, 
and  this  section  does  not  authorize  a  suit  against  a  corpora- 
tion on  shares  of  non-resident  shareholders  until  the  ex- 
piration of  that  time.  Baltimore  v.  Chester  River  S.  S.  Co., 
103  Md.  400. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  3 

A  person  assessed  without  notice  is  entitled  to  a  writ  of 
injunction  to  restrain  the  collection  of  the  tax.  Baltimore 
v.  Poole  &  Son  Co.,  97  Md.  67. 

Acts  of  Tax  Officials  Must  be  Within  the  Law.  No  per- 
son can  be  taxed  without  notice  by  the  County  Commis- 
sioners. When  a  person  is  so  assessed  and  he  applies  to 
have  the  assessment  set  aside  the  Commissioners  have  no 
authority  to  continue  it  on  their  books  because  he  cannot  or 
will  not  say  who  is  the  actual  owner  of  the  assessed  prop- 
erty.   Baltimore  County  v.  Winand,  77  Md.  522. 

Administrators  and  Executors — Their  Duties  as  to  the 
Payment  of  Taxes.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  Code 
Art.  81,  Sec.  72,  which  prescribes  that  "administrators 
shall  pay  all  taxes  due  from  their  decedents  as  preferred 
debts,  and  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  except  necessary 
funeral  expenses,"  executors  and  administrators  are  evi- 
dently held  affected  with  notice  of  taxes  due  upon  the  prop- 
erty in  their  custody,  and  it  is  their  legal  duty  to  ascertain 
and  discharge  them,  next  after  funeral  expenses,  before 
proceeding  to  the  further  administration  of  the  estate. 
Bonaparte  v.  State,  63  Md.  465. 

But  while  an  executor  is  to  be  assessed  in  the  city  or 
county  where  administration  is  had  with  personal  property 
there  situate,  and  that  of  an  intangible  nature  not  located 
permanently  elsewhere,  it  is  provided  by  the  Code,  Art. 
75,  Sec.  88,  that  "an  executor  may  be  sued  either  in  the 
county  where  he  resides,  or  where  he  obtained  administra- 


4  Maryland  Tax  Digkst. 

tion."  This  right  to  sue  in  either  place  is  but  to  facilitate 
recovery  against  an  executor  and  does  not  affect  the  nature 
of  the  demand.    Ibid. 

Taxes  are  not  debts  within  the  meaning  of  the  Code, 
Art.  93,  Sec.  109.  They  are  not  demands  against  which 
a  set-off  is  admissible ;  nor  are  they  contracts  between  party 
and  party,  either  express  or  implied,  but  they  are  the  posi- 
tive acts  of  the  government,  binding  upon  the  inhabitants, 
and  to  the  making  and  enforcing  of  which  their  consent 
is  not  required.   Ibid. 

The  situs  for  the  taxation  of  the  securities  belonging  to 
the  estate  of  the  decedent  is  the  place  of  administration. 
Ibid. 

An  executor  has  the  right  to  retain  the  money  to  pay  a 
paving  tax  bill,  due  for  paving  in  front  of  decedent's  prop- 
erty, and  which  accrued  during  his  life  time.  Handy  v. 
Collins,  60  Md.  229. 

Where  the  administrator  is  among  the  creditors  of  the 
decedent  his  claim  must  be  proved  under  the  provisions  of 
the  Code,  Art.  93,  Sec.  95,  before  being  approved  by 
the  Orphan's  Court.    Watson  v.  Watson,  58  Md.  442. 

Alienor  Liable  for  Taxes.  Where  property,  after  aliena- 
tion, is  allowed  to  remain  on  the  tax  books  of  the 
county,  assessed  to  the  alienor,  and  he  fails  to  avail  him- 
self of  the  means  provided  by  law  to  have  the  assessment 
corrected,  he  is  liable  for  taxes  on  such  property,  and  they 


Maryland  Tax  Digkst.  5 

may  be  recovered  in  an  action  of  indebitatus  assumpsit 
against  him  by  the  County  Commissioners.  Frederick 
County  v.  Clagett,  31  Md.  210. 

• 
No  person   shall  be  chargeable  with  the   assessment  of 

property  which  he  may  have  alienated,  but  the  same  shall 
be  chargeable  to  the  alienee;  and  the  Appeal  Tax  Court 
shall,  from  time  to  time,  correct  the  account  of  any  person 
who  may  have  parted  with  the  possession  of  any  property, 
and  the  same  so  taken  off  shall  be  charged  to  the  person 
who  may  have  acquired  possession  of  the  property.  Balti- 
more City  Charter,  Sec.  166.  Query:  Does  not  this  enact- 
ment nullify  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  Clagett's 
Case,  supra t 

Annex  Block  Boundaries.  A  certain  block  of  ground  in 
the  annexed  territory  was  bounded  on  three  sides  by  regu- 
lar city  streets  paved  and  kerbed  and  on  the  fourth  side  by 
an  alley  graded  and  paved  throughout  its  length  with  cob- 
blestones but  without  kerbs.  Held  that  this  block  of  ground 
is  bounded  by  streets  and  alleys  graded  and  opened  within 
the  meaning  of  the  Act  of  1902,  and  the  fact  that  the  pav- 
ing of  the  alley  was  in  bad  condition  and  that  it  was  not 
kerbed  does  not  prevent  it  from  being  considered  as  a  boun- 
dary within  the  requirements  of  the  statute,  and  consequently 
that  landed  property  within  this  block  is  subject  after  the 
year  1900  to  the  city  tax  rate.  Baltimore  v.  Rosenthal,  102 
Md.  298. 


6  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Annex  Blocks  Exceeding  200,000  Square  Feet.       The 

property  is  situate  in  that  part  of  Baltimore  City  known  as 
the  Annex,  and  for  the  year  1908,  it  was  classified  at  the  full 
city  rate  on  the  "assessed  value.  S'aid  property  is  situated  in 
an  area  of  ground  bounded  by  Linden  avenue,  Ducatel  street, 
Bolton  avenue  (now  Brookfield  avenue)  and  Whitelock 
street;  it  is  agreed  that  the  area  bounded  by  these  streets 
contains  200,660  superficial  square  feet ;  that  Linden  avenue 
and  Ducatel  and  Whitelock  streets  are  graded,  paved  and 
kerbed;  that  Bolton  avenue  is  a  private  street,  paved  with 
cobblestones  and  kerbed.  It  is  admitted  that  the  block  of 
ground  contains  660  superficial  square  feet  in  excess  of 
the  number  of  superficial  square  feet  fixed  and  prescribed 
by  the  Act  of  1902,  Chapter  130.  To  subject  the  property 
in  this  block  to  be  taxed  at  the  full  city  rate,  it  is  urged  upon 
the  part  of  the  appellant  that  this  slight  excess  of  660  feet 
should  be  disregarded  and  ignored  by  us,  and  the  provisions 
of  the  statute  waived  in  favor  of  the  city.  We  have  ex- 
amined this  condition  in  the  light  of  the  facts  set  out  in  the 
record  and  can  find  no  valid  reason  why  the  Court  should 
waive  the  plain  provision  of  the  statute,  or  disturb  the  rule 
established  by  this  Court  in  its  previous  decisions  in  the 
Annex  tax  cases.    Baltimore  v.  Harris,  113  Md.  228. 

In  Baltimore  v.  Gail,  106  Md.  686,  we  said  that  the  Acts 
of  1888,  Chap.  98,  and  1902,  Chap.  130,  have  been  con- 
sidered by  this  Court  in  a  number  of  cases,  but  in  none 
of  them  has  the  Court  evinced  the  slightest  purpose  to 
weaken  the  force  or  narrow  the  scope  of  their  provisions. 
Those  acts  prescribe  the  conditions  under  which   the  full 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  7 

city  rate  may  be  imposed,  and  it  can  only  be  imposed  upon 
the  conditions  therein  expressed.  It  would  be  not  only  a 
hardship  upon  the  taxpayer  of  the  Annex  to  impose  that 
rate  upon  other  and  different  conditions,  but  to  do  so  would 
be  an  unwarrantable  exercise  of  the  taxing  power  of  the 
city.   Ibid. 

Lots  of  ground,  in  a  block  exceeding  200,000  superficial 
square  feet,  bounded  on  all  sides  by  streets  and  paved  from 
kerb  to  kerb,  which  exceed  200  feet  in  depth,  are  to  be  clas- 
sified as  rural  property.    Baltimore  v.  Knell,  111  Md.  583. 

Under  the  Act  of  1902,  Chap.  130,  lots  situated  in  a 
block  of  ground  in  the  Annex,  one  boundary  of  which  is  an 
unpaved  lane,  is  not  subject  to  the  full  city  rate.  A  private 
alley  running  through  a  block  exceeding  200,000  square  feet 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  boundary  to  divide  the  block  into 
areas  of  less  than  200,000  feet.  Ibid. 

A  turnpike  road  used  and  graded  as  a  street  may  be 
treated  as  one  of  the  boundaries  of  a  block  under  the  Act 
of  1902,  Chap.  130.    Coulston  v.  Baltimore,  109  Ml.  271. 

Annex  Property — When  Liable   for  Full  City  Rate. 

The  Legislature  has  defined  the  class  of  annex  property 
which  shall  be  liable  to  the  full  city  rate,  and,  when  it 
reaches  the  standard  of  development  required  by  the  statute, 
it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  to  so  list, 
classify  or  adjust  the  property  upon  the  tax  books  in  order 
that  it  may  be  liable  for  the  proper  tax.  In  other  words, 
the  Legislature  has  said  that  the  property  in  the  Annex 


8  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

should  be  exempt  from  the  payment  of  taxes  at  the  full  city 
rate  for  a  definite  period,  but  after  the  year  1900,  and  when 
it  has  sustained  a  certain  stage  of  development,  it  should 
be  taxed  at  the  full  city  rate.  When,  therefore,  property 
in  the  Annex  reaches  the  prescribed  development  it  falls 
within  the  class  of  property  the  Legislature  clearly  meant 
should  pay  the  city  rate.    Sains  v.  Fisher,  10(5  Md.  107. 

Annexation  Act  not  a  Contract.  The  Act  of  1902  de- 
fining the  terms  used  in  the  original  annexation  act  of  1888 
(annexing  certain  adjacent  territory  to  Baltimore  City)  is  a 
constitutional  exercise  of  power  and  is  not  open  to  the  ob- 
jection that  it  impairs  the  contract  formed  by  the  Act  of 
1888,  since  this  act  was  not  a  contract  but  a  grant  of  the 
sovereign  power  of  taxation  to  the  municipality  of  Balti- 
more and  could  be  withdrawn  or  modified  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  Legislature.     Joesting  v.  Baltimore,  97  Md.  589. 

Appeals  From  Assessments.  Under  the  Act  of  1914  all 
appeals  from  the  assessments  made  by  County  Commis- 
sioners or  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore,  or  because 
of  their  refusal  to  reduce  or  abate  existing  assessments, 
must  be  to  the  State  Tax  Commission  and  not  to  the 
Courts  as  heretofore  provided  by  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  Sec. 
18.  If  the  question  involved,  however,  be  one  of  law  and 
not  of  fact,  appeal  may  be  had  to  the  Courts.  See  Appen- 
dix for  State  Tax  Commission  Act. 

If  the  property  owner  who  feels  aggrieved  by  an  assess- 
ment fails  to  pursue  the  remedy  pointed  out  by  the  Code, 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  9 

Art.  81,  Sec.  18,  he  cannot  be  relieved  in  equity  save  in  a 
strong  case.     O'Neal  v.  Virginia  Bridge  Co.,  18  Md.  23. 

Chapter  430  of  the  Act  of  1910  granting  appeals  from 
the  refusal  of  County  Commissioners  to  abate  assessments 
refers  to  existing  assessments  only  and  such  as  may  prop- 
erly be  made  by  the  County  Commissioners  from  time  to 
time,  and  not  as  to  such  as  are  made  by  them  when  acting 
as  a  board  of  control  and  review  under  the  law  for  the 
general  reassessment.  Chesapeake  &  Potomac  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Allegany  County,  116  Md.  220. 

Every  taxpayer  is  entitled  to  a  full  and  fair  hearing  when 
his  property  is  assessed  and  before  an  assessment  is  in- 
creased, and  in  the  Annex  to  Baltimore  City  before  an  in- 
creased rate  of  taxation  is  imposed ;  the  City  Charter  and 
laws  of  the  State  afford  him  ample  protection,  and  when 
he  fails  to  resort  to  his  remedy  he  cannot  recover  taxes  paid 
by  him  merely  because  in  a  suit  by  the  city  against  another 
party  for  a  similar  tax  the  law  was  substantially  declared 
invalid.    Baltimore  v.  Harvey,  118  Md.  285. 

Chap.  300  of  the  Act  of  1910  authorizes  appeals  from 
county  boards  of  control  only  where  the  complainant 
alleges  that  the  property  assessed  is  exempt  or  that  he  is 
not  the  owner.  Under  the  Act  there  is  no  right  of  appeal 
to  the  Circuit  Courts  on  the  ground  that  the  value  placed  on 
the  property  is  excessive.  Under  Chap.  430,  of  the  Acts 
of  1910,  appeals  may  be  taken  from  the  refusal  of  the 
County  Commissioners  to  abate  existing  assessments.  Ches- 
apeake &  Potomac  Telephone  Co.  v.  Allegany  Co.,  116  Md. 
233-4. 


10  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Under  Sec.  170,  of  the  Charter  of  Baltimore  City,  the 
Court  of  Appeals  is  not  required  to  review  the  findings 
of  fact  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  valuation  of  property 
for  taxation.    Baltimore  v.  Bonaparte,  93  Md.  156. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  cannot  be  required  to  sit  as  a 
board  of  review  to  revise  the  amount  of  the  valuation  placed 
by  assessors  upon  property  for  taxation,  but  when  the 
record  shows  that  a  valuation  has  been  imposed  in  a 
capricious  or  unwarrantable  way  instead  of  by  the  exercise  of 
judgment,  then  such  valuation  would  not  be  an  assessment 
at  all.     Consolidated  Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  101  Md.  541. 

Assessment  for  Special  Benefits,  a  Right  That  has  Been 
Long  Exercised.  The  objection  that  benefits  are  not  as- 
sessable on  account  of  the  improvements  because  a  special 
fund  has  been  appropriated  for  that  object,  is  fully  met 
by  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Lauer  v.  Baltimore,  110  Md. 
447.  In  that  case  an  assessment  in  connection  with  the 
opening  of  a  street  in  the  Baltimore  City  Annex  was  re- 
sisted on  the  ground  that  the  act  of  1904,  Chap.  247,  created 
a  loan  of  two  million  dollars  which  was  "to  be  used  onlv 
for  the  purpose  of  providing  the  costs  and  expenses  of  con- 
demning, opening,  grading,  paving  and  kerbing  the  streets, 
avenues,  lanes,  and  alleys"  of  that  portion  of  the  city.  *  *  * 
The  present  case  is  controlled  by  the  same  considerations. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Act  relating  to  the  Fallsway  to 
qualify  or  restrict  the  Charter  power  of  the  city  of  the  Com- 
missioners for  Opening  Streets  to  assess  property  benefited 


Maryi^and  Tax  Digest.  11 

by  such  an  undertaking.     P.  B.  &  W.  R.  R.  v.  Baltimore, 
121  Md.  504. 

The  right  to  assess  property  in  particular  localities  to 
the  extent  that  it  is  deemed  specially  benefited  by  local  im- 
provements is  to  be  referred  to  the  power  of  taxation  and 
has  been  recognized  and  sanctioned  in  all  the  states.  The 
theory  on  which  such  assessments  is  made  is  that  those  whose 
property  is  thus  enhanced,  and  who  thus  receive  peculiar  ben- 
efits from  the  improvements,  should  contribute  specially  to 
defray  its  cost,  1  Lewis  Eminent  Domain,  Sec  5 ;  Gould  v. 
Baltimore,  59  Md.  378 ;  Hagerstown  v.  Startzman,  93  Md. 
609.  The  power  to  make  such  assessments  has  been  ex- 
pressly granted  to  the  "Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore 
for  a  long  time.    Lauer  v.  Baltimore,  110  Md.  447. 

The  right  to  make  benefit  assessments  is  undoubtedly  an 
exercise  of  the  taxing  power.  Gould  v.  Baltimore,  58  Md.  46. 

In  the  payment  of  the  assessment  thus  made,  the  adjacent 
owner  is  supposed  to  be  compensated  by  the  enhanced  value 
of  his  property  arising  from  the  improvements.  Gould  v. 
Baltimore,  59  Md.  380. 

To  justify  an  assessment  the  improvement  must  be  for  a 
public  purpose  since  the  public  have  no  right  to  tax  a  citizen 
to  make  improvements  for  his  benefit  solely.  Streets  which 
are  opened  are  public  benefits,  but  the  cost  of  opening  and 
improving  them  is  assessed  on  adjoining  owners  on  the 
ground  of  private  benefits.  This  is  the  precise  ground  upon 
which  the  power  of  assessment  is  placed.  Baltimore  v. 
Hanson,  61  Md.  465. 


12  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Whether  an  improvement  authorized  by  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council  will  benefit  the  property  along  the  line  of  such 
improvement  is  a  question  left  exclusively  to  their  judgment, 
and  their  determination  in  the  premises  is  final  and  con- 
clusive. The  courts  have  no  power  to  review  such  deter- 
mination at  the  instance  of  the  property  owner  specially 
taxed.  Baltimore  v.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital,  56  Md.  1 ; 
Moale  v.  Baltimore,  61  Md.  224. 

The  Legislature  has  the  constitutional  power  to  authorize 
benefits  to  be  assessed  and  levied  by  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  of  Baltimore  upon  property  adjacent  to,  as  well  as 
within  the  limits,  of  the  city.  Brooks  V.  Baltimore,  48  "M'd. 
265. 

Excessive  estimates  of  benefits  derived  may  be  corrected 
on  appeal  by  a  court  and  jury.  Alexander  v.  Baltimore, 
5  Gill,  382. 

The  power  of  the  Legislature  to  lay  special  taxes  for 
local  improvements,  and  to  impose  special  assessments  for 
road  or  street  improvements,  when  not  restricted  by  con- 
stitutional provisions,  is  well  settled  and  is  supported  by 
numerous  Federal  and  State  decisions.  Leser  v.  Wagner, 
120  Md.  680. 

A  special  assessment  may  be  levied  upon  an  executed  con- 
sideration for  a  public  work  already  done.    Ibid. 

Where  a  street  has  been  paved,  and  the  property  benefited 
has  been  assessed  under  an  ordinance  subsequently  de- 
clared void,   the  Legislature  has  power   to   authorize   the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  13 

city  to  levy  special  assessments  against  such  property  to 
the  extent  of  the  special  benefits  derived  by  the  property. 
Baltimore  v.  Ulman,  79  Md.  482. 

Assessment  of  a  Distributed  Estate  Void.  The  admin- 
istrator of  an  estate  in  Washington  County,  having  been 
appointed  trustee  by  the  heirs,  converted  the  property  into 
cash  and  invested  the  proceeds  in  mortgages  in  another 
state  in  which  he  resided.  The  property  thus  distributed 
was  reported  by  the  Register  of  Wills  to  the  County  Com- 
missioners, who  assessed  the  administrator  for  the  amount 
reported.  As  there  was  no  property  remaining  in  the  hands 
of  the  administrator,  having  been  distributed  by  order  of 
the  Orphans'  Court,  before  the  levy  and  assessment  was 
made,  the  tax  was  illegal  and  void,  and  the  County  Commis- 
sioners exceeded  their  powers.  Nicodemus  v.  Hull,  93  Md. 
367. 

Assessments  Generally — How  the  Power  to  Make  and  to 
Correct  and  Increase  Should  be  Exercised.  The  County 
Commissioners  and  Appeal  Tax  Court  are  directed  annually 
to  correct  the  assessment  of  the  property  in  their  respective 
counties  and  the  City  of  Baltimore.  The  powers  delegated 
are  important,  and  no  less  important  to  the  property  owner 
than  to  the  public  at  large ;  and  therefore  they  should  not 
be  attempted  to  be  exercised  in  an  arbitrary  or  capricious 
manner;  nor  exercised  in  any  case  without  due  regard  to 
the  rights  of  the  property  owner.  He  must  have  a  right  to 
be  heard,  and  that,  too,  before  his  rights  are  determined 


14  MaryJvAnp  Tax  Digest. 

by  the  only  tribunal  that  can  hear  him  in  defense  of  his 
rights.    Allegany  County  v.  N.  Y.  Mining  Co.,  76  Md.  554. 

The  County  Commissioners  admit  that  they  fixed  the  in- 
creased valuation  in  this  case  before  giving  notice.  This  is 
justified  upon  no  principle  of  justice,  whether  in  a  tax  court 
or  any  other  court,  to  say  nothing  of  the  express  injunc- 
tion of  the  statute  prohibiting  such  mode  of  proceedings.  *  * 
Therefore  the  increased  valuation  of  the  plaintiff's  property 
was  illegal  and  void.    Ibid. 

If  the  County  Commissioners  act  within  the  scope  of  their 
authority,  and  after  complying  with  all  the  necessary  condi- 
tions precedent  prescribed,  such  as  the  giving  of  the  re- 
quired notice,  and  the  like,  their  judgment  become  final,  and 
is  not  the  subject  of  review  by  any  other  tribunal,  for  the 
correction  of  mere  informalities  or  irregularities  in  their 
proceeding,  which  may  not  involve  the  question  of  transcend- 
ing authority.  If,  however,  they  proceed  without  the  war- 
rant of  law,  their  proceedings  will  be  restrained  by  a  court 
of  equity  as  being  illegal  and  void.  Ibid. 

Where  a  special  authority  to  levy  taxes  is  delegated  it 
must  be  strictly  pursued.    Kerr  v.  State,  3  H.  &  J.  564. 

Though  the  County  Commissioners  make  the  levy  on  some 
other  day  than  the  one  set  forth  in  the  statute  it  is  binding, 
as  the  statute  in  that  respect  is  merely  directory.  State  v. 
Homer,  34  Md.  569. 

A  tax  collector,  illegally  appointed,  though  he  gives 
bond,  is  not  authorized  to  act  as  such  official,  and  all  his  acts 
are  unlawful.    Burgess  v.  Pue,  2  Gill.  42. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  15 

i 
j 

If  the  property  is  indivisible,  so  that  the  value  of  the  sev- 
eral parts,  those  that  are  exempt  from  taxation  under  the 
law  and  those  that  are  not,  cannot  be  ascertained,  the  amount 
of  the  net  income  (from  the  academy  or  school)  may  be 
capitalized  as  the  basis  of  assessment.  Frederick  County  v. 
Sisters  of  St.  Joseph,  48  Md.  42. 

Assessments  may  be  made  by  direct  legislative  act  as 
well  as  by  the  tax  officials.    Baltimore  v.  State,  105  M'd.  1. 

In  1903  the  Wilkens  Company  was  organized  under  New 
Jersey  laws  and  the  property  of  the  individual  firm  of 
Wilkens  &  Co.  that  preceded  it  was  transferred  to  the  cor- 
poration. Taxes  for  the  years  1903  and  1904  were  paid  in 
the  name  of  the  individual  firm  by  the  officers  of  the  com- 
pany. But  in  July,  1905,  upon  their  request,  the  assessment 
was  transferred  to  the  corporation  and  a  new  assessment 
was  made  upon  the  tangible  property  of  the  corporation  on 
a  regular  form  furnished  by  the  assessor  and  delivered 
by  an  officer  of  the  company  to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  the 
valuation  given  by  the  appellant  being  adopted.  Later,  the 
officials  of  the  corporation  protested  against  the  assessment 
upon  the  ground  that  it  was  illegal,  because  the  City  Char- 
ter, Section  171,  provides  that  the  valuation  of  property  as  it 
appears  on  the  assessment  books  on  October  1st  shall  be 
the  basis  of  the  levy  for  the  ensuing  year.  It  appears  from 
the  agreed  statement  that  the  transfer  from  the  account  of 
Wilkens  &  Co.  to  that  of  the  appellant  was  made  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  latter,  and,  under  these  circumstances,  the 
appellant  is  estopped  from  raising  this  objection.  Wilkens 
Co.  v.  Baltimore,  103  Md.  314. 


16  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Taxation  and  Exemptions — 
Franchise  and  Gross  Receipts  Tax— Contract  by  State. 

This  suit  is  brought  to  recover  a  tax  imposed  by  the  Act. 
of  1872,  Chap.  234,  on  the  gross  receipts  of  all  railroads 
incorporated  by,  and  doing  business,  in  this  State ;  and  it  is 
claimed  that  under  Sec.  18,  of  the  Act  of  1826,  the  property 
and  franchises  of  the  Company  are  exempt  from  any  tax. 
Sec.  18,  of  the  Act  of  1826,  incorporating  the  Baltimore  & 
Ohio  Railroad  Company,  provides  'That  the  said  road  or 
roads,  with  all  their  works,  improvements  and  profits,  and 
all  the  machinery  of  transportation  used  on  said  road,  are 
hereby  vested  in  the  said  Company,  incorporated  by  this 
Act,  and  their  successors  forever ;  and  the  shares  of  the 
capital  stock  of  said  Company  shall  be  deemed  and  con- 
sidered personal  estate,  and  shall  be  exempt  from  the  im- 
position of  any  tax  or  burthen."  There  is  no  provision  in 
the  Act  or  in  the  then  existing  State  Constitution  reserving 
the  right  to  repeal  or  amend  the  charter  of  the  appellee, 
and  the  exemption  therein  granted  is  a  contract  between 
the  State  and  the  corporations,  State  v.  N.  C.  R.  R.  Co.. 
44  Md.  162,  and  therefore  beyond  the  power  of  a  subse- 
quent Legislature  to  repeal  or  in  any  manner  impair.  In 
Baltimore  v.  Railroad  Co.,  6  Gill,  292,  the  power  to  tax  the 
real  and  personal  property  of  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad 
Company,  and  its  capital  stock,  and  its  shares  of  stock  in  the 
hands  of  shareholders,  was  the  sole  question  before  the 
Court,  and  all  the  Judges  were  of  the  opinion  that  no  such 
power  existed. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  17 

We  are  of  the  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  gross  receipts 
of  the  appellees'  entire  road  from  Baltimore  to  the  Ohio 
River,  and  the  gross  receipts  derived  from  the  lateral  roads 
built  by  the  appellee,  and  from  all  buildings  and  works 
necessary  and  expedient  to  the  operation  of  its  road  are  ex- 
empt from  the  imposition  of  any  tax  or  burthen.  And  this, 
too,  whether  said  road  or  roads,  and  buildings,  and  works 
were  constructed  with  money  derived  from  the  subscrip- 
tion to  its  capital  stock,  or  from  sales  of  its  shares  of  stock, 
or  from  money  borrowed,  and  secured  by  mortgage,  or  from 
the  undistributed  profits  of  the  Company,  or  from  all  these 
sources  combined.  State  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad  Co., 
48  Md.  70-75. 

The  buildings,  elevators,  wharves,  piers  and  docks  are 
necessary  for  the  business  of  the  appellee  as  a  common 
carrier,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  and  storing  grain 
and  freight  shipped  over  its  road  after  the  same  ltave 
reached  the  place  of  destination,  and  previous  to  delivery 
to  the  consignee  or  owner,  and  therefore  they  are  exempt. 
Ibid. 

But  the  rights  of  the  appellee  in  this  respect  are  such  as 
pertain  to  its  functions  as  a  common  carrier;  and  as  such, 
it  has  no  right  to  own  and  use  these  structures  for  the  stor- 
age of  grain  and  freight  after  the  owner  or  consignee  has 
had  a  reasonable  time  to  remove  the  same.  The  Act  of  1826 
does  not  authorize  the  appellee  to  carry  on  the  business 
of  a  warehouseman,  and  if  these  structures  are  owned  and 
used  for  carrying  on  a  business  separate  and  distinct  from 


18  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

its  business  as  a  carrier,  then  such  structures  are  taxable 
according  to  valuation  as  other  real  property.   Ibid. 

The  Metropolitan  Road  built  under  the  authority  of  a 
Legislative  Act, of  1865,  and  not  under  the  original  charter, 
is  liable  to  the  gross  receipts  tax.   Ibid. 

The  Act  of  1826  confers  no  power  on  the  appellee  to  ac- 
quire steamship  or  steamboat  lines,  and  the  receipts  from 
these  are  liable  to  the  tax  on  such  receipts  as  are  earned  in 
the  State.    Ibid. 

All  bonds  of  other  railroads  acquired  by  the  Baltimore  & 
Ohio  Railroad  Company  are  taxable  according  to  their  mar- 
ket value.   Ibid. 

[Note:  In  1878  the  General  Assembly  passed  what  was 
known  as  the  "Compromise  Act,  Chap.  155,"  by  the  terms 
of  which  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad  Company  agreed, 
in  return  for  the  repeal  of  the  Act  of  1865  imposing  a 
twenty  per  cent.  State  tax  on  the  receipts  of  the  Metropoli- 
tan Branch  Railroad,  to  pay  the  gross  receipts  tax,  then 
fixed  by  law  at  one-half  of  one  per  centum.  The  Com- 
pany has  declined  to  pay  subsequent  increases  of  the  gross 
receipts  tax,  and  suit  is  now  pending  to  test  the  State's 
rights  in  the  premises.] 

Bank  Taxation — Legislative  Acts — Taxing  the  Property 
and  Capital  Stock  of  a  Bank  at  the  Same  Time  Would  be 
a  Double  Tax.  It  is  perfectly  understood  that  the  stock 
of  a  bank  is  the  representative  of  the  whole  property;  and 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  19 

when  a  tax  has  been  laid  on  the  stock  in  the  hands  of  the 
shareholders,  the  real  and  personal  estate  of  the  company 
becomes  exempt  from  taxation.  To  tax  both  the  real  and 
personal  property,  and  the  stock,  would  be  a  double  tax,  and 
therefore  illegal  and  unjust.    Tax  Cases,  12  G.  &  J.  117. 

When  the  contract  between  the  State  and  banks  was 
entered  into  in  the  year  1821,  Act  of  1821,  Chap.  131,  Sec. 
11,  the  banks  embraced  by  the  statute  were  subject  to  a  tax 
of  twenty  cents  on  every  hundred  dollars  of  the  capital 
stock  actually  paid  in,  or  which  should  thereafter  be  paid  in, 
to  be  appropriated  as  a  fund  for  the  establishment  of  free 
schools;  and  the  stipulation  not  to  impose  any  further  tax 
''upon  them  during  the  continuance  of  their  charters"  was 
intended,  we  think,  to  protect  the  banks  against  any  addi- 
tional tax  for  the  period  of  twenty  years  which  might  be 
imposed  by  the  Legislature  for  State  purposes.  Under 
the  circumstances  of  this  case,  the  words  "further  tax" 
have  no  application  to  the  City  of  Baltimore.  And  if  the 
object  of  the  contract  had  been  to  exempt  the  banks  from 
all  taxation,  whether  imposed  by  the  State  or  City,  it  is 
impossible  to  believe  that  the  parties  would  not  have  em- 
ployed more  comprehensive  terms  and  have  used  language 
better  calculated  to  accomplish  their  purpose.  Gordon  v.- 
Baltimore,  5  Gill,  239. 

It  was  the  purpose  of  the  Act  of  1841,  Chap.  23,  to  impose 
both  State  and  City  taxes  on  the  banks.  The  right  of  the 
City  to  tax  the  stock,  according  to  the  interpretation  which 
we  have  put  upon  the  contract,  remains  unaffected  by  any 


20  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

constitutional  inhibition.  It  was  the  intention  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  subject  this  property  to  a  City  tax.  But  as  to  the 
State  tax  the  Act  of  1841  was  a  violation  of  the  Act  of 
1821.  Ibid. 

In  this  case  the  executor  of  an  estate  paid  the  tax  on  bank 
stock  to  the  City  of  Baltimore  under  a  judgment  obtained 
in  the  Baltimore  County  Court.  Subsequently,  the  executor 
brought  an  action  of  assumpsit  to  recover.  It  is  an  estab- 
lished principle,  and  not  disputed  by  counsel  for  appellant, 
that  money  paid  on  an  execution  issued  upon  a  judgment 
of  a  Court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  cannot  be  recovered 
back,  although  it  was  afterwards  discovered  that  the  money 
was  not  due,  and  the  party  is  in  a  situation  to  prove  the  fact. 
Ibid. 

Being  of  the  opinion  that  to  tax  the  property  of  the  bank 
and  its  capital  stock  at  the  same  time  would  be  double 
taxation,  forbidden  by  our  organic  law,  we  cannot  construe 
the  Act  of  1876  as  authorizing  such  double  taxation.  In  the 
case  of  a  corporation  chartered  by  the  State  it  could  not 
be  tolerated  or  enforced;  and  the  appellee  is  entitled  to  be 
protected  against  such  an  exaction.  Under  the  Revised 
Statutes  of  the  United  States,  the  State  is  left  free  to  ex- 
ercise the  power  of  taxation  of  national  banks,  assessing 
the  same  upon  the  real  property  of  the  bank,  or  upon  the 
shares  of  the  capital  stock,  at  the  election  of  the  State,  in 
accordance  with  our  own  Constitution  and  laws,  and,  only 
in  conformity  with  the  rules  applicable  to  the  citizens  and 
corporations  of  the  State.  Frederick  County  v.  Farmers' 
and  Mechanics'  National  Bank,  48  Md.  120. 


Maryiand  Tax  Digest.  21 

The  shares  of  stock  and  the  personal  property  of  a  foreign 
corporation,  owned  by  residents  of  "Maryland,  is  not  double 
taxation,  and  therefore  is  not  unconstitutional.  The  tax  on 
shares  is  a  tax  on  the  owners,  and  the  tax  on  the  tangible 
property  of  a  corporation  is  a  tax  on  the  corporation. 
Wilkens  Co.  v.  -Baltimore,  103  Md.  312. 

The  fact  that  the  personal  property  of  Maryland  cor- 
porations is  exempt  from  taxation,  only  the  shares  being 
taxed,  does  not  invalidate  a  tax  on  the  personal  property 
of  a  foreign  corporation,  as  the  State  has  full  power  to 
exempt  any  class  of  property  as  it  may  deem  best  accord- 
ing to  its  views  of  public  policy.   Ibid. 

For  the  recovery  of  the  tax  on  the  stock  of  the  bank,  the 
State  has  no  lien  on  the  stock ;  it  can  maintain  no  action  at 
law  against  Hie  stockholders  nor  against  the  bank:  nor 
against  any  officer  of  the  bank  in  his  official  character.  Nor 
can  it  maintain  an  action  for  money  had  and  received  against 
any  officer  of  the  bank  in  his  individual  character.  Yet, 
under  the  Act  of  18-L3,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  has 
a  clear  and  unquestionable  right  to  be  paid  out  of  the  divi- 
dends declared,  the  amount  of  the  tax  imposed  on  the  as- 
sessed value  of  the  stock  of  the  bank.  State  v.  Mayhezv,  si 
Gill,  503. 

Where  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  prescribed  the  method 
for  valuing  bank  stock,  and  the  rate  of  taxation,  it  is  a 
legislative  levy,  without  regard  as  to  who  may  be  the  share 
owners.    Ibid. 


22  Maryland  Tax  Dickst. 

Code,  Art.  81,  Sec.  214,  does  not  constitute  an  illegal 
discrimination  against  national  banks  under  Sec.  5219  of 
the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  it  not  appearing 
that  this  section  in  its  practical  operation  resulted  in  re- 
lieving the  capital  of  private  firms  from  equal  taxation,  and 
all  domestic  incorporated  banks  and  trust  companies  being 
taxed  at  the  same  rate.  National  Bank  of  Baltimore  v. 
Baltimore,  92  Fed.  239.     (Affirmed  in  100  Fed.  24.) 

Benevolent  Institutions  Entitled  to  Only  Such  Exemp- 
tions as  Are  Specifically  Granted.  The  bill  in  this  case  was 
filed  to  obtain  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  collection  of 
taxes  from  the  appellee,  upon  the  ground  that  the  property 
upon  which  the  taxes  were  assessed  had  been  exempted  from 
taxation  by  law.  The  appellee  is  a  benevolent  institution 
and  is  the  owner  of  what  is  known  as  "The  Masonic  Tem- 
ple," a  building  located  in  the  City  of  Baltimore.  It  is  only 
the  upper  portion  of  this  building  that  is  used  by  the  appellee 
for  the  purposes  of  the  lodge,  and  the  lower  portion  has 
been  constructed  into  storerooms  and  halls,  and  as  such 
rented  out  and  used,  and  the  revenue  derived  therefrom 
has  been  received  and  applied  to  the  purposes  of  the  asso- 
ciation. It  is  upon  the  capitalization  of  such  rentals  that  the 
assessment  in  question  has  been  made,  and  not  upon  the 
whole  building  itself ;  but  the  rate  of  such  capitalization  does 
not  appear.  *   *   *   * 

By  the  Act  of  187(5,  Chap.  260,  sec.  2,  the  buildings  of 
charitable  or  benevolent  institutions,  so  far  as  used  for  their 
corporate  purposes,  and  the  ground  upon  which  such  build- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  2:\ 

ings  stood,  were  exempt  from  taxation ;  and  under  that  ex- 
emption, and  in  respect  to  this  same  building,  the  Court  held, 
in  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Grand  Lodge,  50  Md.  421,  that  to  the 
extent  of  the  rentals  received  the  appellee  was  liable  to  taxa- 
tion. And  we  have  not  been  able  to  perceive  anything  in  the 
subsequent  legislation  to  relieve  the  appellee  from  that  lia- 
bility.   Baltimore  v.  Grand  Lodge  of  Masons,  (>0  Md.  280. 

The  right  of  taxation  is  never  presumed  to  be  relin- 
quished ;  and  before  any  party  can  rightfully  claim  an  ex- 
emption from  the  common  burden,  it  is  incumbent  upon  that 
party  to  show  affirmatively  that  the  exemption  claimed  is 
authorized  by  law.  If  there  be  a  real  doubt  upon  the  sub- 
ject, that  doubt  must  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  State; 
and  it  is  only  where  the  exemption  is  shown  to  be  granted  in 
terms  clear  and  unequivocal  that  the  right  of  exemption  can 
be  maintained.     Ibid. 

This  case  is  strictly  analogous  to,  and  falls  directly  with 
the  principle  of  Proprietors  of  Meeting  House  v.  City  of 
Lowell,  1  Met.  541,  and  which  was  quoted  with  approval 
by  this  Court,  in  deciding  the  case  of  Frederick  County 
v.  Sisters  of  Charity  of  St.  Joseph,  48  'Md.  M.  In  the  case 
thus  quoted  with  approval,  the  exemption  was,  by  the  terms, 
of  the  Statute,  of  "all  houses  of  religious  worship,  and  the 
pews  and  furniture  within  the  same."  The  plaintiffs  were 
authorized  to  purchase  a  site  for  a  meeting  house,  and  to 
erect  such  house  thereon.  They  erected  a  building,  the  upper 
story  of  which  was  divided  into  pews,  and  furnished  for  re- 
ligious purposes,  and  the  lower  story  was  fitted  up  as  stores. 


24:  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

And  such  being  the  nature  of  the  property,  it  was  held  that 
the  exemption  of  the  statute  extended  only  to  that  part  of 
the  property  which  was  used  as  a  place  of  worship,  and  for 
purposes  connected  therewith ;  and,  as  to  the  part  of  the 
building  devoted  to  the  stores,  that  was  held  liable  to  be 
taxed  as  other  property.  That  case,  assuming  it  to  have 
been  rightly  decided,  would  seem  to  be  quite  conclusive  of 
the  present.    Ibid. 

" Block  of  Ground."  The  Act  of  1902,  Chap.  130,  de- 
clares what  shall  be  "landed  property,"  within  Sec.  19, 
Chap.  98,  of  the  Acts  of  1888,  and  distinctly  provides  that  a 
"block  of  ground"  shall  be  construed  to  mean  an  area  of 
ground  not  exceeding  two  hundred  thousand  superficial 
square  feet,  formed  and  bounded  on  all  sides  by  inter- 
secting avenues,  streets  or  alleys,  opened,  graded,  kerbed 
and  otherwise  improved  from  kerb  to  kerb  by  pavement, 
macadam,  gravel  or  other  substantial  material.  Sindail  v. 
Baltimore,  93  Md.  534 ;  Sams  v.  Fisher,  106  Md.  155 ;  Hiss 
v.  Baltimore,  103  Md.  621. 

The  Act  of  1888,  Chap.  98,  as  amended  by  the  Act  of 
1902,  Chap.  130,  prescribes  the  conditions  under  which 
the  full  city  rate  may  be  imposed,  and  it  can  only  be  imposed 
upon  the  conditions  therein  expressed.  It  would  be  not 
only  a  hardship  upon  the  taxpayer  of  the  Annex  to  impose 
that  rate  upon  other  and  different  conditions,  but  to  do  so 
would  be  an  unwarranted  exercise  of  the  taxing  power  of 
the  City.    Baltimore  v.  Gail,  106  Md.  686. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  25 

The  block  not  being  subject  to  the  full  city  rate,  there 
was  no  authority  in  the  Court  to  carve  out  certain  portions 
of  it  and  impose  the  full  rate  merely  because  the  owners 
of  certain  portions  of  the  block  had  paved,  in  the  manner 
shown  by  the  evidence,  certain  private  alleys  for  the  con- 
venience of  their  lots.  Such  a  construction  would  produce 
a  condition  which  the  Legislature  could  never  have  con- 
templated.   Baltimore  v.  S chafer,  107  Md.  38. 

It  would  be  exceedingly  dangerous  where  the  law  is 
specific  and  plain,  as  in  this  case,  as  to  what  constitutes  a 
block  of  ground,  and  the  amount  of  the  superficial  square 
feet  fixed  by  the  statute  is  certain  and  definite,  for  the 
Courts  to  ignore  and  to  waive  the  plain  provision  of  the 
statute,  as  urged  here.  It  would  practically  make  uncertain 
that  which  the  statute  and  the  decisions  of  this  Court  have 
settled  and  made  certain.    Baltimore  v.  Harris,  113  Md.  231. 

Bonded  Indebtedness  not  Taxable.  The  bonded  in- 
debtedness of  a  corporation,  under  the  Maryland  statutes, 
does  not  constitute  any  part  of  its  assessable  property. 
Consolidated  Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  101  Md.  541. 

Bonds  of  B.  &  0.  and  N.  C.  Railroads  Taxable.  The  ap- 
pellees insist  that  the  bonds  of  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Rail- 
road Company  and  the  Northern  Central  Railway  Company 
are  exempt  from  taxation  because  they  represent  the  share 
or  part  of  certain  mortgages  on  the  property  of  the  afore- 
said railroads  held  by  the  appellees.  It  is  not  alleged  that 
the  bonds  for  which  exemption  is  claimed  are  secured  by 


26  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

mortgage,  by  property  within  the  State,  but  it  is  admitted 
that  the  mortgages,  securing  the  same,  include  property 
within  and  without  the  State.  Without  inquiring  into  the 
reason  of  the. discrimination  between  mortgages  on  property 
within  and  without  the  State,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  the 
bonds  assessed  in  this  case  do  not  come  within  the  terms  of 
the  exemption,  and  it  is  an  unyielding  rule  of  law,  that  ex- 
emptions claimed  under  legislative  Acts,  should  be  rigidly 
construed  and  established  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Appeal 
Tax  Court  v.  Gill,  50  Md.  395. 

Bonds  of  Tax  Collectors  —  Liability  of  Sureties 
Thereon.  The  fact  that  the  collector  was  a  defaulter  at  the 
time  of  his  reappointment,  for  taxes  collected  by  him  in 
previous  years,  and  that  this  information  had  not  been 
imparted  to  them  by  the  County  Commissioners  who  made 
the  reappointment,  cannot  be  pleaded  as  a  defense  on  an 
action  on  the  bond.    Froztmfelter  v.  State,  66  Md.  85. 

The  sureties  on  a  tax  collector's  bond  cannot  plead  that 
their  principal  had  no  legal  title  to  the  office  of  collector,  or 
that  he  was  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  such  office.   Ibid. 

Under  the  Act  of  1794,  Chap.  53,  a  surety  on  a  tax  col- 
lector's bond  cannot  defend  himself  on  the  ground  that  the 
required  oath  had  not  been  taken  by  the  collector.  Lauren- 
son  v.  State,  7  H.  &  J.  339. 

When  the  County  Commissioners  give  an  order,  drawn 
on  a  proper  fund,  directing  the  collector  to  pay  a  certain 
sum  to  a  third  party,  and  the  collector  promises  to  pay  it 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  27 

but  fails  to  pay  it,  his  sureties  are  liable  for  the  amount. 
Fidelity  Co.  v.  Charles  County,  98  Md.  163. 

Bonus  Tax  on  Capital  Stock.  A  corporation  cannot 
maintain  an  action  for  libel  before  its  bonus  tax  is  paid. 
There  is  no  legal  existence  to  a  corporation  until  its  bonus 
tax  has  been  paid.  National  Shutter  Bar  Co.  v.  Zimmer- 
man, 110  Md.  317. 

A  party  sued  by  a  corporation  which  has  not  paid  the 
bonus  tax  may  plead  that  fact  in  bar  of  further  proceed- 
ings. The  corporation  cannot  maintain  its  action  by  paying 
the  tax  after  suit  has  been  brought.  Maryland  Tube  Works 
v.  West  End  Imp.  Co.,  87  Md.  210. 

A  subscription  to  the  stock  of  a  corporation  which  has 
not  paid  its  bonus  tax  is  a  nullity,  unless  the  subscriber 
chooses  to  ratify  it  after  the  tax  has  been  paid.  Murphy  v. 
Wheatley,  102  Md.  504;  Cleaveland  v.  Mullin,  96  Md.  603. 

Book  Values  Improper  Criterion  for  Valuing  Securities. 

The  book  value  alone  of  shares  of  stock  is  neither  a  safe 
nor  a  true  measure  of  their  actual  value.  Schley  v.  Mont- 
gomery County,  106  Md.  -111. 

Boundaries — An  Alley  Need  not  be  Kerbed  to  Make  it 
A  Boundary.  This  is  an  appeal  from  a  decree  which  per- 
petually enjoined  the  appellant  from  levying  taxes  for 
municipal  purposes  against  the  appellee,  as  the  owner  of 
certain  property  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  at  a  rate  in  ex- 


28  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

cess  of  sixty  cents  per  one  hundred  dollars.  The  property 
is  in  the  block  bounded  by  Whitelock  street,  North  avenue, 
Eutaw  place  and  Madison  avenue.  There  is  an  alley  known 
as  Morris  alley  running  from  North  avenue  to  Whitelock 
street  about  midway  between  Eutaw  Place  and  Madison 
avenue.  Appellee  contends  that  his  property  is  not  subject 
to  the  city  rate  of  taxation  because  Morris  alley  is  not  paved 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Act  of  1902,  and  that  it  has  no 
kerbs  as  required  by  that  act.  The  evidence  abundantly 
shows  that  the  alley  was  opened,  paved  and  graded  within 
the  meaning  of  the  act.  The  fact  that  the  paving  is  in  bad 
condition  would  not  justify  this  Court  in  declaring  it  not 
to  be  embraced  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.  *  *  It 
would  be  remarkable  if  the  Legislature  intended  that  the 
mere  failure  to  place  kerbstones  either  on  the  outside  limits, 
or  within  those  limits,  should  have  the  effect  contended  for 
in  this  case.  *  *  To  hold  that  all  alleys  must  be  kerbed 
in  the  way  streets  usually  are,  would,  in  many  instances, 
destroy  the  usefulness  of  alleys.  *  *  The  decree  of  the 
lower  court  will  be  reversed  and  the  bill  dismissed.  Balti- 
more v.  Rosenthal,  102  Mi  298. 

In  the  present  case  there  is  no  kerbing,  consisting  of  a  line 
of  stone,  set  in  the  ground  in  a  vertical  position,  but  that 
which  is  substituted  for  it,  is,  for  the  purposes  of  the  Act 
of  1902,  Chap.  130,  to  be  regarded  as  the  kerb  of  the  street. 
It  could  not  have  been  the  intention  of  the  Legislature,  nor 
can  it  be  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act,  that  the  property 
upon  a  street  or  avenue  paved  and  improved  in  the  manner 
adopted  by  those  interested  in  the  development  of  it,  and 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  29 

paved  and  improved  to  the  same  extent  as  if  the  kerbstone, 
and  not  the  rebut,  had  been  used,  should  be  perpetually 
exempt  from  taxation  at  a  rate  to  which  it  would  other- 
wise be  liable  had  the  kerbstone  been  used.  Smith  v.  Bal- 
timore, 120  Md.  151. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  this  question  has  been  before 
this  Court.  In  the  case  of  Baltimore  v.  Rosenthal,  102  Md. 
298,  the  Court  was  called  upon  to  decide  whether  or  not 
an  alley  not  kerbed  could  be  regarded  as  a  boundary  of  a 
block.  Judge  Boyd,  in  speaking  for  the  Court,  said:  "If 
it  be  true  that  this  alley  was  paved  with  cobblestones  from 
its  eastern  to  its  western  limits,  it  would  be  remarkable  if 
the  Legislature  intended  that  the  mere  failure  to  place  kerb- 
stones, should  have  the  effect  contended  for  in  this  case. 
It  is  neither  necessary  nor  usual  to  kerb  an  alley  used  for 
such  purposes  as  this  one.  Streets  are  sometimes  paved 
from  building  line  to  building  line  with  vitrified  brick,  or 
other  material,  without  any  kerbstone,  and  yet  it  cannot  be 
possible  that  the  mere  absence  of  kerbstones  was  intended 
to  result  in  exempting  property  in  the  Annex  from  the 
paying  of  taxes  at  the  regular  rates,  simply  because  there 
was  no  kerbstones,  although  the  street  in  all  other  respects 
was  improved  as  required  by  the  statute."  This  case,  in  our 
opinion,  is  decisive  of  the  question  here  presented.   Ibid. 

A  turnpike  road,  graded  as  a  street,  and  so  used,  may 
properly  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  boundaries  of  landed 
property  in  the  Annex  under  the  Act  of  1902,  Chap.  130. 
Coulston  v.  Baltimore,  109  Md.  271. 


30  Maryland  Tax  Digest.  . 

It  is  not  provided  in  the  Act  of  1902,  amendatory  to  the 
Act  of  1888,  that  such  streets,  avenues  and  alleys  shall  be 
public  and  not  private  as  claimed  by  the  appellant,  although 
since  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1902  this  Court  had  held  in 
Coulston  v.  Baltimore,  109  Md.  271,  that  it  was  not  essen- 
tial to  the  right  of  the  city  to  impose  the  full  tax  rate  that 
the  streets  and  avenues  bounding  the  block  should  be  public 
and  not  private.    Smith  v.  Baltimore,  120  Md.  149. 

Bridges — Taxation  of.  Bridges  across  streams  in  Mary- 
land are  taxable  in  the  county  in  which  they  are  situated, 
though  the  corporation  owning  the  bridge  has  its  principal 
office  outside  the  State.  O'Neal  v.  Virginia  &  Maryland 
Bridge  Co.,  18  Md.  21. 

Building  Association  Exemptions.  As  to  the  exemp- 
tion of  the  shares  of  homestead  and  building  associations 
represented  by  mortgages  of  land,  the  character  of  those  as- 
sociations, which  are  not  intended  to  be  money-making  cor- 
porations, is  such  that  the  exemption  cannot  be  considered 
as  arbitrary.    Simpson  v.  Hopkins,  82  Md.  490. 

The  Act  of  1896,  Chap.  120,  providing  for  the  taxation 
of  mortgage  debts,  does  not  include  the  mortgages  of  build- 
ing associations,  since  the  amount  advanced  under  such  a 
mortgage  by  the  association  to  a  member  upon  the  value  of 
his  shares  of  stock  is  not  a  debt  secured  by  mortgage  in  the 
sense  in  which  that  word  is  used  in  the  Act,  and  the  exemp- 
tion of  building  associations   from  taxation  by   the   Code 


Maryland  Tax  Digkst.  31 

Art.  23,  Sec.  99,  is  not  repealed  by  the  Act  of  1896.  Faust 
v.  Building  Association,  84  Md.  186. 

Burden  of  Proof  in  Tax  Appeals.  The  rule  regulating 
the  burden  of  proof  in  special  judicial  proceedings  is  the 
same  that  governs  where  an  issue  has  been  formulated  by 
the  pleadings.  He  who  asks  affirmative  relief,  one  for 
example  who  appeals  from  an  order  *  *  *  has  the  burden 
of  convincing  the  Court  that  action  should  be  taken  in  his 
favor.  16  Cyc.  931.  Quoted  by  the  Court  in  Baltimore  v. 
Hurlock,  113  M'd.  677. 

Capital   Stock   Tax   is    a   Tax    on   the   Shareholders. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  held  by  this  Court  that  the  tax  upon 
the  capital  stock  is  not  a  tax  upon  the  corporation,  but  upon 
the  owners  of  that  stock,  the  corporation  being  made  the 
medium  through  which  the  tax  is  collected.  This  is  in  strict 
accord  and  analogy  with  the  case  of  the  Monticello  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  90  Md.  416,  in  which  McSherry,  C.  J.,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  distilled  spirits  there  sought  to  be  taxed  in  the 
hands  of  the  warehouseman,  says:  "Though  the  language 
employed,  like  that  used  in  many  other  assessment  laws, 
if  read  literally,  would  indicate  an  intention  to  impose  the 
tax  on  the  property  and  not  on  the  owner  of  it,  that  is  not  its 
meaning  when  considered  in  connection  with  the  settled 
policy  of  Maryland  as  announced  in  the  Declaration  of 
Rights.  We  hold,  then,  that  the  tax  is  upon  the  owner  of 
the  spirits  and  not  specifically  upon  the  spirits."  Union 
Trust  Co.  v.  State,  116  Md.  375.  See  also  Am.  Coal  Co.  v. 
Allegany  County,  59  Md.  185. 


32  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Cattle.  Cattle  purchased  out  of  Maryland  and  brought, 
here  to  be  exported  are  assessable  here ;  they  are  not  taxed 
as  exports,  but  as  part  of  the  general  mass  of  property  in 
the  State.    Myers  v.  Baltmore  County,  83  Md.  387. 

The  assessment  of  cattle  brought  to  this  State  for  ship- 
ment to  foreign  countries  does  not  constitute  the  levying  of 
a  duty  on  exports.    Ibid. 

Just  as  the  stock  of  goods,  carried  by  merchants,  is  taxed 
at  the  average  value,  so  a  stock  of  cattle  is  taxable  as  prop- 
erty within  the  State  in  the  same  way.    Ibid. 

Cemeteries  not  Exempt  From  Paving  Tax.  The  ex- 
emption of  a  cemetery  from  taxation  does  not  exempt  it 
from  the  payment  of  a  paving  tax  levied  by  the  municipality. 
Dolan  v.  Baltimore,  4  Gill,  395. 

Cemetery    Improvements    not    Subject    to    Taxation. 

The  charter  of  the  Baltimore  Cemetery  Company,  granted 
by  the  Legislature,  provided  that  "the  land  of  the  Com- 
pany dedicated  to  the  purposes  of  a  cemetery,  is  declared 
not  to  be  subject  to  taxation."  It  is  contended  that  the  ex- 
emption does  not  include  the  improvements,  because  the  Act 
of  1876  requires  assessors,  in  valuing  real  estate,  to  "sep- 
arately value  the  improvements  thereon."  But  this  require- 
ment was  not  designed  to  convert  the  improvements  into 
personalty,  or  to  separate  them  from  the  realty.  In  our 
judgment,  the  exemption  of  the  lands  from  taxation  neces- 
sarily embraces  also  an  exemption  of  the  permanent   im- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  33 

provements  thereon  (being  gate  houses,  etc.)  which  are 
essential  to  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  land  for  the  pur- 
pose contemplated  in  the  charter.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v. 
Baltimore  Cemetery  Co.,  50  Md.  435. 

Church    Property    Sold    After    Time    of    Assessment. 

On  October  1,  1901,  the  lot  and  building  at  the  corner  of 
Fulton  and  Pennsylvania  avenues,  Baltimore,  was  owned  by 
a  church,  being  exempt  from  taxation.  On  November  8r 
15)01,  it  ceased  to  be  used  as  a  church,  John  Jenkins  having 
purchased  it.  On  December  27,  11)01,  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court  assessed  the  properly  for  11)02  to  Jenkins  at  $1,700. 
He  appealed  to  the  City  Court,  contending  that  he  could 
not  be  taxed  on  the  property  for  1902  as  on  the  first  of 
October,  1901,  it  was  exempt  under  the  law.  That  conten- 
tion was  sustained  by  the  lower  court.  Held,  That  under 
Sec.  171  of  the  City  Charter,  no  property  other  than  cor- 
porate property  not  subject  to  taxation  on  October  first 
in  each  year  can  enter  into  the  taxable  basis  for  the  ensuing 
fiscal  year  though  it  become  subject  to  taxation  on  the  next 
day.  The  point  of  time  and  the  rule  of  law  which  control 
are  alike  arbitrary,  and  necessarily  so,  but  are  none  the  less 
final  and  conclusive,  without  authority  and  without  argu- 
ment. The  power  given  in  Sec.  171  to  assess  after  October 
first  "property  escaped  or  omitted,"  is  confined  to  property 
which  was  the  subject  of  taxation  on  October  first.  Balti- 
more v.  Jenkins,  96  Md.  195. 

Coal  Tax  Unconstitutional — Capital  Stock  of  Mining 
Companies — Uniformity  of  Tax  Burdens  Required.      The 


34  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Act  of  1872,  Chap.  274,  provided  that  it  shall  not  be  lawful 
for  any  coal  mining  company  in  this  State  to  transport  any 
coal  mined  in  the  State,  to  be  sold,  until  a  state  tax  of  two 
cents  per  ton^on  said  coal  had  been  paid  as  provided  for  in 
the  Act.  This  suit  is  for  the  recovery  of  the  amount  of  the 
tax  on  the  coal  transported  by  defendant.  The  Act  makes 
no  discrimination  between  that  portion  of  the  coal  that  may 
be  transported  to  places  within  the  State  for  sale  and  that 
portion  transported  beyond  the  State  for  sale.  As  to  all 
such  portions  of  the  coal  as  may  be  transported  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  State  for  sale,  the  tax  would  plainly  appear 
to  be  an  interference  with  and  a  restriction  over  interstate 
commerce,  and  hence  in  contravention  of  that  provision  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  which  gives  to  Congress  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  among  the  several  states.'  *  *  * 
Without  saying  more  in  regard  to  this  question,  we  are  of 
the  opinion  that  the  Act  of  1872,  Chap.  274,  so  far  as  it 
affects  to  impose  the  tax  upon  coal  transported  from  the 
mines  in  this  State  to  places  beyond  the  State  for  sale,  is 
unconstitutional  and  void.  State  v.  C.  &  P.  R.  R.,  40  Md. 
48. 

The  State  is  at  liberty  to  tax  her  internal  commerce,  but 
if  an  Act  to  tax  interstate  commerce  be  unconstitutional  it 
is  not  cured  by  including  in  its  provisions  subjects  within 
the  taxing  power  of  the  State.  This  is  explicitly  decided 
by  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15  Wall,  276,  277.    Ibid. 

The  Act  of  1872  is  violative  of  Art.  15  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  in  that  it  is  a  direct  and  specific  tax  upon  coal,  and, 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  35 

therefore,  a  tax  upon  property.  It  is  not  assessed  with  ref- 
erence to  any  uniform  value  of  the  coal,  nor  in  conformity 
to  any  rate  of  taxation  imposed  upon  others'  property  in  the 
State.  It  is,  therefore,  a  specific,  arbitrary  tax  on  a  part  of 
the  personal  property  of  the  State,  without  regard  to  value, 
uniformity  or  equality.     Ibid. 

The  capital  stock  of  the  mining  companies  of  the  State 
is  liable  to  taxation  according  to  a  fixed  and  certain  rate; 
the  payment  of  the  tax  on  the  capital  stock  exempts  from 
taxation  all  the  property,  both  real  and  personal  of  the  com- 
pany. Though  the  State  may  elect  to  tax  either  the  capital 
stock,  or  the  real  and  personal  property  of  the  company, 
yet  it  cannot  tax  both ;  whichever  it  elects  to  tax,  such  prop- 
erty must  be  assessed  to  an  equal  and  uniform  rate,  in  pro- 
portion to  its  value,  as  all  other  property  in  the  State.   Ibid. 

All  must  bear  their  burden  alike.  It  is  not  competent  for 
the  Legislature  to  discriminate  as  between  the  different 
species  of  property  and  to  tax  some  by  one  rule  and  some 
by  another.     Ibid. 

Collateral  Inheritance  Tax.  A  non-resident  decedent 
being  entitled  to  a  one-fourth  interest  in  the  personal  estate 
of  a  deceased  brother  in  this  State,  letters  of  administration 
on  his  estate  were  taken  out  in  Maryland.  The  administra- 
tors received  sundry  stocks  and  bonds  which  were  held  by 
them  for  delivery  to  the  residuary  legatee,  resident  of  the 
State  in  which  decedent  died,  there  being  no  lineal  descen- 
dants.    Held  that  under  the  Code  1888,  Art.  81,  sec.  102, 


36  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

a  collateral  inheritance  tax  on  the  value  of  said  personal 
property  was  payable  to  the  State  of  Maryland.  State  v. 
Dalrymple,  70  M'd.  305. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Legislature  has  the  power 
to  impose  a  collateral  inheritance  tax,  not  only  where  it 
affects  citizens  of  the  State,  but  also  where  non-residents 
or  aliens  claim  by  inheritance  or  by  will,  property  located 
here.  Every  State  in  the  Union  has  the  authority  to  regu- 
late by  law  the  distribution  of  an  intestate's  property  sit- 
uated within  the  jurisdiction  of  that  State.    Ibid. 

Oixc  ol  the  conditions  upon  which  strangers  and  colla- 
teral kindred  may  acquire  a  decedent's  property,  which  is 
subject  to  the  dominion  of  our  laws,  is  that  there  shall  be 
paid  out  of  such  property  a  tax  of  two  and  a  half  per  cent, 
into  the  treasury  of  the  State.    Ibid. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  the  constitutionality 
of  the  collateral  inheritance  tax  law.  Tyson  v.  State,  2S 
Md.  585. 

A  resident  of  Baltimore  left  a  large  estate  to  trustees 
to  hold  in  trust  for  his  wife,  with  power  to  the  wife  to  de- 
vise the  property  on  her  death  as  she  might  wish.  The 
widow  died  and  left  a  will  which  bequeathed  the  whole 
estate  to  a  charitable  institution.  It  is  plain  that  upon  the 
probate  of  the  will  of  the  widow,  she  having  executed  the 
power  vested  in  her  by  her  husband's  will,  the  estate  there- 
upon became  subject  to  the  collateral  inheritance  law.  Fisher 
v.  State,  106  Md.  120. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  37 

The  collateral  inheritance  tax  is  upon  the  value  of  the 
property,  not  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death,  but  at  the 
time  it  is  transferred  to  the  beneficiary.     Ibid. 

If  an  administrator  or  executor  of  an  estate  pays  out 
money  to  a  legatee,  and  does  not  retain  the  collateral  in- 
heritance tax  the  State  may  recover  from  such  legatee. 
Montague  v.  State,  51  Md.  483. 

Contract  Between  State  and  Corporation  Providing  for 
Limited  Exemption  From  Taxation — Power  of  Legislature 
to  Repeal.  This  appeal  presents  the  important  question 
whether  so  much  of  the  Act  of  1880,  Chap.  16,  as  granted 
to  the  appellee  an  exemption  from  taxation  on  the  gross 
revenues  from  its  property  in  Maryland,  beyond  the  annual 
rate  of  one-half  of  one  per  cent,  was  subject  to  repeal  by  a 
subsequent  Legislature.  If  it  is  determined  that  the  Act  was 
subject  to  repeal,  then  the  further  question  arises  whether 
it  was  in  fact  repealed  by  the  Act  of  1890,  Chap.  559,  which 
imposes  a  tax  of  one  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  gross  re- 
ceipts of  all  railroads  in  the  State  operated  by  steam.  The 
appellee  enjoyed  the  exemption  of  its  property  in  Mary- 
land from  taxation,  thus  secured  to  it  by  the  Act  of  185!, 
down  until  1866,  when  the  Legislature  passed  a  general  as- 
sessment law,  which  provided  for  the  assessment  of  all  prop- 
erty in  the  State,  and  also  repealed  in  general  terms  all  laws 
exempting  property  from  taxation.  Then  followed  the  Act 
of  1872,  which  imposed  a  tax  of  one-half  per  centum  upon 
the  gross  receipts  of  steam  railroads.  Under  the  last  men- 
tioned law  a  tax  was  levied  on  the  appellee  of  one-half 


38  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

per  cent,  of  the  gross  receipts  of  its  Maryland  property  for 
part  of  the  year  1872  and  all  of  the  year  1873.  This  tax 
the  appellee  refused  to  pay  and  the  State  brought  suit  to 
recover  it,  and  the  judgment  being  against  the  State  it 
brought  the  case  here  on  appeal,  and  it  is  reported  in  44  Md. 
131  {State  v.  N.  C.  Ry.  Co.).  This  Court  held  the  appellee 
to  be  liable  for  the  tax  and  reversed  the  judgment  of  the 
lower  Court.   *    *  * 

Then  followed  the  Act  of  1880  and  1890,  the  latter  rais- 
ing the  annual  rate  of  tax  upon  the  gross  receipts  of  steam 
railroad  companies  to  one  per  cent.  The  appellee  paid  the 
increased  rate  of  tax  upon  the  gross  receipts  of  its  property 
in  Maryland,  under  protest,  until  189G,  when  it  refused  to  do 
so  any  longer,  and  the  present  suit  was  brought  to  recover 
the  tax  for  1896.  The  Court  below  declared  that  the  Act 
of  1880  constituted  a  contract  irrepealable  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  appellee,  by  which  it  was  exempted  from  paying 
more  than  one-half  per  cent,  tax  upon  its  gross  revenue, 
from  which  verdict  the  State  appealed.  It  is  clear  that  the 
Act  of  1880  and  its  acceptance  by  the  appellee  in  this  case 
did  not  constitute  a  contract  between  it  and  this  State,  which 
a  subsequent  Legislature  could  not  repeal,  because  the  Con- 
stitution of  1851,  which  was  in  force  when  the  Act  of  1854 
was  passed,  would  have  prevented  the  General  Assembly 
of  1880  from  making  an  irrepealable  grant  of  the  exemption 
from  taxation.    State  v.  N.  C.  Ry.  Co.,  90  Md.  470. 

As  to  the  question  of  whether  the  Act  of  1890,  Chap.  :>59, 
repealed  the  exemption   from  taxation,  we  think  that  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  39 

exemption  was  so  repealed,  both  because  the  language  of 
the  repealing  clause  contained  in  the  later  act  was  broad 
enough  to  cover  it,  and  because  of  the  plain  inconsistency  of 
the  provisions  of  the  two  Acts.    Ibid. 

Corporate  Property  not  Liable  to  Distraint  for  the  Pay- 
ment of  Taxes  on  Shares  of  Stock.  The  Southern  Develop- 
ment Company,  of  Hagerstown,  is  a  body  corporate.  It 
was  charged  on  the  assessment  books  of  Washington  County 
with  county  taxes  on  the  shares  of  its  capital  stock.  The 
taxes  being  unpaid  for  the  year  1895,  the  Collector  levied  on 
its  real  estate  and  subsequently  sold  the  same  to  satisfy  the 
amount  claimed  to  be  due,  not  on  the  property  sold,  but  on 
the  shares  of  its  capital  stock  owned  by  its  stockholders. 
The  ratification  of  the  sale  was  objected  to  on  various 
grounds.  The  sale  was  finally  set  aside  by  the  Circuit  Court 
and  the  Tax  Collector  then  took  this  appeal.  By.  sec.  141, 
Art.  81,  of  the  Code,  as  amended  by  the  Act  of  1896,  Chap. 
120,  it  is  in  substance  provided  that  the  taxable  value  of 
the  capital  stock  of  banks,  corporations  and  joint  stock  com- 
panies shall  be  ascertained  by  deducting  the  assessed  value 
of  the  real  estate  owned  by  the  bank,  corporation  and  joint 
stock  company  from  the  aggregate  value  of  all  the  shares 
and  by  then  dividing  the  residuum  by  the  number  of  the 
shares  of  the  capital  stock ;  and  the  quotient  is  then  de- 
clared to  be  the  taxable  value  of  each  share  for  taxation 
by  the  State.  It  is  further  provided  by  the  same  section  that 
this  valuation  shall  be  certified  to  the  County  Commissioners 
of  the  Counties  and  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore,  by 
the  State  Tax  Commissioner,  and  that  the  taxable  value  o! 


40  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

9 

such  shares  owned  by  residents  of  this  State  shall,  for  county 
and  municipal  purposes,  be  valued  to  the  owners  thereof  in 
the  county  or  city  in  which  such  owners  may  reside.  The 
section  then  provides  that  said  taxable  values  of  such  shares 
of  stock  shall  be  collected  from  such  bank  or  corporation 
and  when  so  paid  shall  be  charged  to  the  account  of  the 
stockholders.   *   *   *   * 

Though  the  statute  prescribes  that  the  tax  shall  be  col- 
lected from  the  corporation  it  nowhere  authorizes  a  distraint 
to  enforce  that  collection.  The  power  to  distrain  and  sell 
for  non-payment  of  taxes  is  given  by  other  sections  of  the 
Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  49,  et  seq.,  but  it  is  obvious  these  sec- 
tions have  no  relation  to  this  particular  and  peculiar  pro- 
vision imposing  on  the  corporation  the  duty  to  collect  for 
the  State  and  the  counties  the  tax  payable  by  the  share- 
holders on  the  capital  stock  owned  by  them.  This  is  made 
perfectly  clear  by  reference  to  the  Act  of  1900,  Chap.  844, 
which  adds  sec.  88a,  &c,  to  Art.  81  of  the  Code.  By  that 
Act  a  remedy  is  provided  against  the  corporation  if  it  shall 
neglect  to  pay  the  State  tax  due  by  the  shareholders  on  their 
shares  of  the  capital  stock  and  the  remedy  thus  provided  is  by 
suit  against  the  corporation  for  the  amount  of  the  tax  and  a 
further  sum  added  by  way  of  penalty.  It  is  hardly  stip- 
posable  that  an  express  enactment  prescribing  a  suit  at 
law  would  have  been  passed  if  the  right  to  proceed  in  the 
most  speedy  and  summary  way  by  distress  existed.  The 
sole  liability  of  the  corporation  grows  out  of  a  statutory  duty 
to  collect,  and  not  out  of  its  failure  to  pay  a  tax  primarily 
due  by  it.     The  corporation  owes  the  money  to  the  county 


Maryland  Tax  Digkst.  41 

not  as  a  taxpayer,  but  as  a  tax  collector,  and  the  prescribed 
proceedings  against  the  one  is  not  available  against  the  other. 
Until  a  judgment  is  obtained  against  the  corporation  and  an 
execution  is  issued  thereon,  the  property  owned  by  the  cor- 
poration cannot  be  sold  for  the  payment  of  the  amount  due 
to  the  county  as  the  tax  on  the  shares  owned  by  the  stock- 
holders. A  sale  thus  made  would  be  a  sale  by  the  sheriff 
in  view  of  legal  proceedings  and  not  a  sale  by  the  Tax  Col- 
lector.   Hull  v.  Southern  Development  Company,  89  Md.  9. 

Corporation  Bonds  Secured  by  Mortgage  on  Property 
in  This  State  Taxable.  The  appellee  (City  Collector  of 
Baltimore)  sued  to  recover  taxes  for  three  years  alleged  to 
be  due  on  certain  bonds  of  the  Consolidated  Gas  Company 
owned  by  the  appellants.  It  is  admitted  that  these  bonds  are 
secured  by  a  mortgage  upon  the  property  of  the  corporation 
wholly  within  this  State.  It  is  contended  by  the  appellee 
that  the  bonds  are  liable  to  taxation  under  the  Code,  Art. 
81,  sec.  88,  which  provides  that  "all  bonds  and  certificates 
of  debt  bearing  interest,  issued  by  any  railroad  or  other  cor- 
poration of  this  State,  secured  by  mortgage  of  property 
wholly  within  the  State,  shall  be  subject  to  assessment  and 
taxation  to  the  owner  or  owners  thereof  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  like  bonds  or  certificates  of  debt  bearing  interest  and 
secured  by  mortgage  of  property  and  partly  in  some  other 
state  or  states  are  now  subject  to  the  laws  of  this  State." 
Sec.  4,  of  the  same  Article,  provides  that  Sec.  88  shall  not 
apply  to  individual  mortgages  upon  property  wholly  within 
the  State  nor  to  the  mortgage  debts  secured  thereby.     The 


42  Maryland  Tax -Digest, 

appellants  contend  that  the  bonds  are  not  liable  to  taxation 
because  Sec.  88  is  unconstitutional  in  that  it  discriminates 
between  mortgages  by  corporations  and  individuals.  It  has 
been  settled  that  the  Declaration  of  Rights  constitutes  no 
bar  to  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  exempt  certain  kinds 
of  propery  from  taxation  when  that  exemption  is  not  an 
arbitrary  discrimination  in  favor  of  a  particular  class. 
Simpson  v.  Hopkins,  82  Md.  489. 

We  cannot  consent  to  the  proposition  that  the  taxation 
of  the  bonds  of  a  corporation  secured  by  mortgage,  while 
the  debt  of  an  individual  so  secured  is  exempt,  is  an  arbi- 
trary discrimination  against  corporations  or  the  holders  of 
corporate  securities.  An  individual's  true  worth  for  the 
purposes  of  taxation  consists  of  his  real  and  personal  prop- 
erty, but  in  the  case  of  a  corporation  its  franchise,  its  bor- 
rowing power,  its  earning  capacity,  its  real  worth  are  not 
represented  merely  by  its  visible  property  and  shares  of 
stock.  The  taxable  value  of  a  corporation  is  its  bonded 
indebtedness  together  with  its  stock.  See  State  Tax  Cases, 
92  U.  S.  605.  Unless  the  discrimination  be  arbitrary,  the 
wisdom  of  the  exemption  within  the  discretion  of  the  Legis- 
lature is  not  subject  to  control  by  the  courts.     Ibid. 

Nor  can  the  alleged  exemption  of  the  bonds  of  a  cor- 
poration, which  do  not  bear  interest,  be  regarded  as  arbi- 
trary discrimination.  The  difference  between  a  security  that 
produces  interest  and  one  that  does  not,  and  the  reasons  for 
the  taxation  of  the  one  and  the  exemption  of  the  other  are 
both  clear  and  obvious.  The  true  test  of  a  taxable  value  is 
the  producing  value  to  the  owner.   Ibid. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  43 

While  there  is  no  provision  in  terms  for  the  taxation  of 
bonds  secured  by  mortgage  upon  property  partly  within 
and  partly  without  the  State,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  such  bonds  are  liable  to  taxation  under  the  provisions 
of  Code j  Art.  81,  sec.  2,  which  provides  for  the  taxa- 
tion of  "all  bonds  made  or  issued  by  any  territory  or  cor- 
poration belonging  to  residents  of  this  State,  all  investments 
in  private  securities  of  every  kind  and  description  belong- 
ing to  residents  of  this  State,  and  all  other  property  of  every 
kind,  nature  and  description  within  this  State."    Ibid. 

Corporation's  Failure  to  Withhold  Taxes.  Where  the 
corporation  does  not  withhold  from  the  stockholders  the  tax 
due  on  the  shares  of  their  stock  (that  were  to  be  retired) 
the  corporation  is  itself  liable  for  the  taxes  due  the  State 
upon  such  shares.    Union  Trust  Co.  v.  State,  116  Md.  378. 

Corporations'  Ground  Rents  Not  to  be  Classed  as  Part 
of  Its  Real  Estate  Within  the  Meaning  of  the  Legislature. 

The  Act  of  1880,  Chap.  20,  amending  the  Code,  Art.  81, 
sec.  151,  as  re-enacted  by  the  Act  of  1878,  Chap.  178,  pro- 
vides that  the  president  or  other  proper  officer  of  every 
corporation,  formed  under  the  laws  of  this  State  or  doing 
business  therein,  shall  furnish  a  true  statement  of  any  real 
property  which  it  shall  own  or  possess  to  the  County  Com- 
missioners or  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City,  ac- 
cording to  the  location  of  said  property,  and  such  real  prop- 
erty shall  be  valued  and  assessed  by  the  said  Commissioners 
or  Tax  Court,  respectively,  to  the  said  corporation,  and  they 


44  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

shall  give  duplicate  certificates  of  such  valuation  and  as- 
sessment to  such  president  or  other  officer,  who  shall  trans- 
mit one  of  such  certificates,  with  his  return  of  stock,  to  the 
State  Tax  Commissioner,  and  taxes  shall  be  paid  by  such 
corporation  on  such  assessment  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
same  are  levied  upon  and  paid  by  individual  owners  of  real 
property  in  such  county  or  city,  and  that  the  Tax  Commis- 
sioner shall  deduct  the  assessed  value  of  such  real  property 
from  the  aggregate  value  of  all  the  shares  of  stock  of  such 
corporation  and  divide  the  residuum  by  the  number  of  shares 
of  the  capital  stock,  and  the  quotient  shall  be  the  taxable 
value  of  such  respective  shares  of  stock.  It  is  contended 
by  the  appellee  that  its  reversionary  interest  in  fee  in  certain 
parcels  of  land  in  Baltimore  City  demised  by  it  to  various 
tenants,  under  leases  for  99  years,  renewable  forever,  brings 
it  within  the  statutory  provision  just  cited,  and  should  have 
been  deducted  from  the  valuation  made  by  the  Tax  Com- 
missioner of  its  capital  stock,  as  being  real  estate  of  which 
it  is  the  owner;  and,  further,  that  the  taxes  upon  the  full 
value  of  said  lands  having  been  paid  by  its  lessees,  not  to 
deduct  the  value  of  such  interest  from  its  capital  stock 
would  be  in  effect  to  subject  it  to  double  taxation.   *   *   * 

In  our  construction  of  the  law,  the  appellee  is  not  to  be 
considered  an  owner  of  real  estate  within  the  contemplation 
of  the  Act  of  Assembly,  nor  within  the  proper  significance 
of  those  words  as  used  in  connection  with  the  established 
tax  system  of  the  State.  Those  corporations  only  are  to  be 
regarded  as  owners  of  real  estate,  the  valuation  of  which  is 
to  be  deducted  from  the  valuation  of  their  stock,  to  whom 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  45 

the  land  is  directly  assessable,  and  who  are  primarily  charge- 
able with  the  taxes  thereon.  It  is  only  when  a  corporation  is 
thus  liable  for  the  taxes  on  real  property  that  the  law  re- 
lieves its  stock  as  representative  of  that  property.  The  rela- 
tion between  the  land  and  the  stock  must  be  thus  direct.  It 
is  not  such  taxation  as  may  incidentally  burden  the  resources 
or  reduce  the  profits  of  corporations,  and  incidentally  affect 
the  market  value  of  their  stock  for  which  it  is  the  design 
or  policy  of  the  law  to  allow  an  abatement.  Baltimore  v. 
Canton  Company,  63  Md.  231. 

It  is  not  compatible  with  public  convenience  and  the 
prompt  collection  of  revenue  for  the  State  to  trace  out  all 
the  sub-divided  or  qualified  interests  that  may  be  held  in 
real  estate,  and  seek  to  hold  the  various  owners  responsi- 
ble. Its  policy  is  to  assess  the  fee  simple  value  of  the  land 
to  the  holder  of  the  possession,  where  its  real  owner  is  not 
apparent  or  accessible,  leaving  the  parties  interested  to 
adjust  the  proportions  of  liability  between  themselves.  This 
general  principle  is  stated  in  Burroughs  on  Taxation,  223, 
as  follows:  "It  is  the  fee  simple  in  land  that  is  assessed. 
The  law  does  not  regard  the  different  interests  in  the  assess- 
ment. It  looks  to  the  person  having  the  present  right  of 
enjoyment,  whether  the  tenant  for  life  or  years,  for  the  tax 
on  the  fee  simple  value  of  the  land,  and  such  person  is  the 
one  to  be  assessed  with  the  land."    Ibid. 

This  policy  is  recognized  in  the  Act  of  1812,  Chap.  91, 
sec.  36,  and  with  specific  reference  to  leasehold  estates.  As 
incorporated  in  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  73,  Act  of  1871,  Chap. 


46  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

483,  sec.  65,  it  enacts:  "The  tenant  or  person  holding  the 
leasehold  estate  shall  pay  to  the  collector  of  taxes  levied  on 
the  demised  premises,  and  shall  have  his  action  against  the 
landlord  for^the  sum  so  paid,  or  may  deduct  the  same  out 
of  the  rent  reserved,  unless  otherwise  agreed  between  the 
lessor  and  lessee."  By  the  force  of  this  provision,  the  lessees 
of  the  appellee,  and  not  the  appellee  itself,  are  the  owners 
of  the  land  in  question  and  for  the  purposes  of  taxation. 
Ibid.  ...'.-■■- 

The  landlord's  interest  in  the  land  is  but  a  form  of  money 
investment,  analogous  to  that  secured  by  a  mortgage.  And 
when  a  corporation  invests  money  in  a  mortgage,  the  ex- 
emption of  the  mortgage  debt  from  taxation  does  not  ex- 
empt the  shares  of  stock  of  the  corporation  to  the  extent  of 
such  investment.  Emory  v.  State,  41  Md.  58.  Nor  is  it 
double  taxation  to  tax  the  mortgagor  on  the  full  value  of 
the  land  he  has  mortgaged,  and  a  corporation  mortgagee  on 
the  full  value  of  its  stock,  when  the  mortgage  is  not  exempt, 
as  in  the  case  of  building  association  mortgages.  Appeal 
Tax  Court  v.  Rice,  50  Md.  319.    Ibid. 

The  Tax  Commissioner  is  a  ministerical  officer  only  in 
making  the  abatement  from  the  valuation  of  its  capital  stock 
of  the  valuation  of  the  real  property  of  a  corporation.  He 
acts  solely  upon  the  assessment  of  such  real  property,  as 
made  by  the  County  Commissioners  or  Appeal  Tax  Court, 
evidenced  by  their  certificate  to  be  furnished  the  president  or 
other  proper  officer  of  the  corporation,  and  by  such  officer 
to  be  transmitted  to  him.     The  appellee  took  no  steps  to 


Maryland  Tax  'Digest.  47 

enforce  the  delivery  of  such  a  certificate,  which  the  state- 
ment of  facts  sets  out  was  not  furnished,  or  to  appeal  from 
the  assessment  said  to  have  been  made;  and  the  Tax  Com- 
missioner had  no  power  but  to  certify  to  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court  the  assessed  taxable  value  of  its  shares  of  stock,  as 
he  had  ascertained  and  affixed  it.    Ibid. 

Corporation  Mortgages  not  Exempt.  The  words  of  the 
Act  of  1870,  Chap.  394,  are  "nor  shall  any  tax  of  any  kind  be 
assessed,  levied  or  collected  on  any  mortgages  of  any  kind, 
or  on  any  mortgage  (or)  bill  of  sale,  upon  any  property 
in  this  State."  We  think,  in  passing  this  Act,  the  Legisla- 
ture designed  only  to  exempt  from  assessment  and  taxation 
the  mortgage  debt,  as  such.  The  words  refer  to  the  instru- 
ment, the  mortgage  itself,  and  declare  that  it  shall  not  be 
subject  to  taxation.  To  construe  the  law  otherwise  will 
exempt  from  taxation  the  capital  stock  of  all  corporations, 
to  the  extent  that  their  loans  may  be  secured  by  mortgage. 
The  law  subjecting  the  capital  stock  to  taxation,  makes  no 
such  exemption.  *  *  *  The  Act  exempting  mortgages  must 
be  held  to  apply  only  to  the  mortgage  securities  themselves, 
and  has  no  application  to  the  taxation  of  the  capital  stock 
of  corporations,  whether  it  be  assessed  at  its  par  value  or 
at  its  actual  market  value.    Emory  v.  State,  41  Md.  58. 

The  mortgages  intended  to  be  exempted  by  the  Act  of 
1876  were  mortgages  upon  property  securing  mortgage 
debts.  Such  a  conveyance  usually  contains  a  covenant  to 
repay,  which  raises  a  personal  obligation  on  the  part  of  the 
mortgagor;  the  exemption  in  question  only  extends  to,  and 


48  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

embraces  mortgages  and  mortgage  debts  of  this  description. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Rice,  50  Md.  310. 

Corporation  Statements — Date  of  Filing.  As  the  law 
formerly  stood,  there  was  quite  a  range  of  time  within  which 
a  corporation  might  select  such  date  as  it  saw  fit  for  making 
up  the  statement  and  its  return  to  the  State  Tax  Commis- 
sioner for  the  purpose  of  the  valuation  of  its  capital  stock. 
That  fact  invited  and  resulted  in  considerable  juggling  of 
figures  and  tended  to  produce  inequality  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  law.  Accordingly  the  present  statute  was  passed, 
by  which  the  first  day  of  January  of  each  calender  year  was 
fixed  at  the  time  as  of  which  all  such  returns  were  to  be 
made,  and  the  valuation  of  the  stock  determined,  and  such 
legislation  has  been  repeatedly  sustained  in  this  court.  Hop- 
kins v.  Van  JVyck,  80  Md.  15;  Skinner  Dry  Dock  Co.  v. 
Baltimore  £H5  Md.  43.  It  must  be  regarded,  therefore,  as 
settled  that  in  this  State  that  for  the  purpose  of  the  taxation 
of  the  capital  stock  of  a  corporation  January  first  is  to  be 
taken  as  the  date  with  regard  to  which  all  elements  are  to 
be  reported,  considered  and  established,  conclusive  alike  upon 
the  State  and  the  corporation.  The  same  rule  has  been  up- 
held in  this  Court  with  regard  to  local  taxation  in  the  City  of 
Baltimore,  both  in  the  Skinner  Dry  Duck  case  and  in  the  case 
of  Hamburger  v.  Baltimore,  106  Md.  47!) ;  Union  Trust  Co. 
v.  State,  116  Md.  377. 

Corporation  Taxes — Payable  to  State  Treasurer.  By  the 
provisions   of  the   Code,  Art.   81,  sec.   93,   taxes   imposed 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  49 

under  the  Act  of  1868,  Chap.  371,  and  the  Act  of  1870, 
Chap.  422,  are  payable  to  the  State  Treasurer  and  not  to 
local  collectors,  and  the  State  may  enforce  their  payment 
by  a  writ  of  mandamus.    Emory  v.  State,  41  Md.  54. 

* 

The  Act  of  1872,  Chap.  419,  repealing  Code,  Art.  81, 
sec.  93,  and  substituting  another  section  therefor,  did  not 
relieve  the  officers  of  corporations  from  the  payment  of  the 
taxes  levied  upon  their  capital  stock  directly  to  the  State 
Treasurer,  and  the  payment  of  such  taxes  may  be  en- 
forced by  a  writ  of  mandamus.    Ibid. 

Corporation  Taxes — When  Due.  Under  the  Act  of 
1890,  Chap.  244,  the  taxes  on  shares  of  stock  are  due  and 
payable  on  November  1.  State  v.  Safe  Deposit  and  Trust 
Co.,  86  Md.  581. 

County  Commissioners  Have  No  Power  to  Assess  Rolling 
Stock  of  Railway  Companies.  The  County  Commissioners 
of  a  county  in  which  is  situated  the  principal  offices  of  a 
railway  company,  whose  roads  extend  through  other  coun- 
ties of  the  State,  have  no  power  to  levy  taxes  on  the  rolling 
stock  of  the  company,  since  the  Act  of  1896,  Chaps.  120 
and  140,  provide  a  special  mode  for  the  assessment  of  the 
rolling  stock  of  railway  companies.  B.  C.  &  A.  Ry  Co.  v. 
Wicomico  County,  93  Md.  114. 

County  Commissioners'  Power  to  Refund.  Code,  Art. 
25,   sec.    9,    makes    it   the    duty    of    the    County    Commis- 


50  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

sioners,  when  satisfied  that  any  error  has  arisen  by  assessing 
property  not  liable  to  be  assessed,  to  refund  to  the  proper 
person  any  money  that  may  have  been  paid  in  consequence 
of  such  error.  If  the  statute  has  created  and  imposed  a 
clear,  positive  duty,  as  we  think  it  has,  such  as  would  be 
required  to  support  this  application,  to  repay  the  taxes 
erroneously  levied  and  received,  that  statute  simply  operates 
to  change  or  modify  the  common  law  rule  that  taxes  paid 
under  a  mistake  of  law  cannot  be  recovered  back.  That 
being  so,  whether  the  taxes  be  paid  under  a  mistake  of  fact 
or  a  mistake  of  law,  would  make  no  difference,  for  in  either 
case  the  party  receiving  the  taxes  would  be  bound  to  refund 
them ;  and  there  would  be  an  implied  promise  raised  to  pay 
the  amount  so  received,  and  upon  that  implied  promise 
an  action  for  monev  had  and  received  could  be  maintained. 
If  the  Commissioners  should  decline  to  repay,  mandamus 
would  lie  after  judgment.  George's  Creek  Co.  v.  Allegany 
Co.,  59  Md.  261. 

Where  taxes  were  improperly  paid  to  a  county  instead  of 
to  a  city,  if  the  city  compels  a  second  payment  of  the  taxes, 
the  taxpayer  may  recover  from  the  county.  Frederick  Co. 
v.  Frederick,  88  Md.  656. 

See  Baltimore  v.  Hussey,  67  Md.  112,  where  it  was  held 
that  money  voluntarily  paid,  with  full  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  for  taxes  afterward  held  to  be  illegally  assessed,  could 
not  be  recovered  back,  although  paid  by  plaintiff  through  a 
mistake  as  to  her  legal  rights ;  also  Monticello  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, 90  Md.  416,  and  Baker  v.  Baker,  94  Md.  627. 


Maryland  Tax  -Dices?.  51 

Inasmuch  as  there  is  a  statute  authorizing  county  com 
missioners  to  refund  money  erroneously  paid  as  taxes,  either 
by  mistake  of  fact  or  of  law,  and  that  there  is  no  such 
statute  applicable  to  Baltimore  City,  the  presumption  is  that 
it  was  purposely  withheld  from  the  city.  Baltimore  v. 
Harvey,  118  Md.  282. 

"Debts"  and  "Taxes."  The  word  "debts"  imparts  the 
money  obligation  of  a  person  incurred  in  his  private  ca- 
pacity. As  defined  by  this  Court  in  Baltimore  v.  Green- 
mount  Cemetery,  7  Md.  517,  the  word  "tax"  means  "a  bur- 
den, charge  or  imposition  put  or  set  upon  a  person  or  prop- 
erty for  public  uses."  And  in  Cooley  on  Taxation,  13,  it 
is  stated  that  "taxes  are  not  debts  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
that  term,  and  their  collection  depends  on  statutory  enforce- 
ment." *  *  They  are  not  contracts  between  party  and 
party ;  they  are  positive  acts  of  government  to  the  making 
and  enforcing  of  which  the  personal  consent  of  the  in- 
habitants is  not  required.    Bonaparte  v.  State,  63  Md.  469. 

Defective  Notice  to  Delinquent  Taxpayers  Renders  Void 
the  Tax  Sale.  This  is  an  action  of  ejectment  brought  by 
the  appellant  to  recover  certain  leasehold  property  situated 
in  Baltimore  City,  and  now  in  the  possession  of  the  appellee. 
The  defendants  assert  title  under  a  deed  of  "March  30,  1S93, 
from  City  Collector  Hopkins,  of  Baltimore,  made  in  pur- 
suance of  a  sale  of  the  property  for  taxes,  due  and  in  arrear 
for  the  years  1889  and  1890.  The  deed  and  the  tax  sale 
proceedings  are  attacked  by  the  appellant  and  the  questions 


52  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

here  involved  turn  upon  the  deed  and  the  sufficiency  of  this 
sale.  There  are  two  grounds  of  objection  relied  upon  by 
the  appellant  to  the  validity  of  the  deed,  and  the  tax  sale; 
first,  because  the  Collector  failed  to  give  a  legally  sufficient 
notice  of  the  sale,  and  second,  because  the  description  of  the 
property  given  by  the  Collector  in  the  advertisement  of  sale 
was  defective,  and  was  not  according  to  the  requirements 
of  law,  in  that  it  failed  to  designate  the  property  to  be  sold, 
with  such  certainty  as  identified  it.  If  these  objections  are 
well  taken  they  are  fatal  to  the  appellees'  case,  and  it  will 
not  be  necessary  for  us  to  consider  the  other  questions  raised 
by  the  record.  It  has  been  often  decided  by  this  Court 
that  the  validity  of  tax  sales  depends  on  a  substantial  com- 
pliance on  the  part  of  the  Collector  with  all  the  essential 
requirements  of  the  statute.  The  notice  required  by  the 
statute  is  jurisdictional.  Baumgardner  v.  Fowler,  82  Md. 
631. 

In  the  case  before  us,  the  report  of  the  Collector  states 
that,  thirty  days  prior  to  proceeding,  bills  setting  forth  the 
amount  of  taxes  due  on  the  said  property  "and  specifying 
the  year  or  years  for  which  such  taxes  were  due,  were  de- 
livered to  Mary  A.  Myers  at  her  residence,  1703  Lemon 
alley,  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  the  owner  of  such  property." 
It  appears  from  the  record  and  is  not  controverted  by  the 
appellee,  that  Mrs.  Mary  A.  Myers  died  in  the  year  1881, 
so  that  notice  for  taxes  due  for  the  year  1889  and  1890 
could  not  have  been  delivered  to  her  at  her  residence,  in  the 
manner  stated  in  the  Collector's  report.  No  other  notice 
is  alleged  to  have  been  given.     The  statute  prescribes  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  53 

several  and  the  specific  modes  by  which  notice  is  to  be  given 
by  the  Collector  of  Taxes  in  Baltimore  City,,  before  he 
proceeds  to  collect  the  same  by  way  of  sale  and  execution. 
He  is  required  to  deliver  a  copy  of  each  tax  bill  to  the  per- 
son by  whom  such  taxes  are  to  be  paid  or  one  of  them,  if 
more  than  one,  or  at  his,  her  or  their  last  known  residence, 
or  to  his,  her  or  their  agent,  or  left  upon  the  premises  with 
a  notice  thereon,  that  unless  the  taxes  so  due  are  paid  within 
thirty  days  thereafter,  five  per  cent,  of  the  gross  amount 
thereof  will  be  added  to  the  bill,  and  at  the  expiration  of 
thirty  days,  from  the  delivery  of  such  bills,  and  notice,  if  the 
same  be  not  paid,  five  per  cent,  of  the  gross  amount  shall  be 
added  to  the  bill  as  a  penalty  and  collected  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  bill  itself.  (Act  of  1890,  Chap.  205.)  It  is 
quite  clear  that  neither  the  requirements  of  the  statute  as 
prescribed  by  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  49,  nor  by  the  Act  of 
1890,  Chap.  205,  as  to  preliminary  notice  were  complied 
with  by  the  Collector.  This  being  so  it  is  fatal  to  the  ap- 
pellee's case.     Benzinger  v.  Gies,  87  Md.  707. 

Deposits  in  Savings  Bank  Invested  in  Ground  Rents  not 
Taxable.  This  suit  is  brought  to  recover  the  tax  assessed 
by  the  Act  of  1874,  Chap.  483,  sec.  85,  which  provides: 
"The  president  or  other  officer  of  any  savings  bank,  institu- 
tion or  corporation,  which  shall  receive  deposits  and  allow 
interest  thereon,  shall  furnish  to  the  Comptroller  on  or  be- 
fore the  first  day  of  July  of  each  year,  the  aggregate  amount 
of  deposits  in  such  corporation ;  and  shall  pay  to  the  Treas- 
urer on  or  before  the  first  of  January  succeeding,  out:  of 


54  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  interest  due  to  the  depositors,  the  State  tax  on  said  de- 
posits." The  question  is  whether  the  deposits  of  the  ap- 
pellee invested  in  ground  rents,  reserved  under  the  leases  of 
99  years  renewable  forever,  on  property,  which,  by  the  law 
of  this  State  is  assessed  to,  and  the  taxes  thereon  paid  by, 
the  leasehold  owner,  are  within  the  operation  of  this  Vet. 
The  contention  is  that  the  tax  thereby  imposed  is  in  effect  a 
tax  on  property  held  by  the  appellee  in  trust  for  its  deposi- 
tors, and  to  hold  that  the  deposits  invested  in  ground  rents 
are  liable  to  the  payment  of  this  tax,  would  be  to  subject  the 
same  property  to  double  taxation,  which  is  forbidden  by  the 
State  Constitution.    *    *    * 

In  view  of  the  decision  in  State  v.  Sterling,  20  Md.  502, 
this  contention  is,  we  think,  well  founded.  The  precise  ques- 
tion arose  in  that  case  upon  the  construction  of  the  Code, 
Art.  81,  sec.  95,  which  in  terms  is  identical  with  the  Act  of 
1871;  and  the  Court  being  of  opinion  that  the  tax  thereby 
asesssed,  was  a  tax  upon  the  property  of  the  institution, 
decided :  1st,  That  the  deposits  invested  in  government  secur- 
ities, which  by  the  Act  of  Congress,  were  exempt  from 
State  taxation,  were  not  within  the  operation  of  the  law ; 
and  2d,  That  the  deposits  invested  in  shares  of  stock  or  other 
funds,  upon  which  taxes  were  paid  by  the  corporation,  or 
other  persons,  were  not  subject  to  the  payment  of  the  tax 
imposed  by  the  Act,  because  to  hold  otherwise  would  subject 
the  same  property  to  double  or  unequal  taxation.  This  de- 
cision was  made  in  1867,  and  in  passing  the  Act  of  1874, 
identical  in  terms  with  the  Act  thus  construed  by  the  Court, 
we  must  presume  the  Legislature  meant  and  understood  it, 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  55 

in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  prior  Act  had  been  inter- 
preted construing  the  Act  of  1874.  Then  according  to  the 
intention  of  the  Legislature,  as  thus  ascertained,  we  must 
hold  that  the  deposits  of  the  appellee  invested  in  ground 
rents,  the  taxes  on  which  have  been  paid  by  the  leasehold 
owner,  are  not  within  the  operation  of  the  Act  of  1874.  *  *  * 

In  so  deciding,  however,  we  are  not  to  be  understood  a» 
concurring  with  the  Court  in  the  construction  placed  upon 
the  Act  in  Sterling  s  Case.  The  tax  imposed  by  that  Act 
on  the  deposits  in  savings  banks,  is  not,  in  our  opinion,  a 
tax  on  the  property  held  by  such  banks  in  trust  for  the  de- 
posits. It  is  not  a  tax  on  the  property  nor  upon  the  invest- 
ments held  by  the  bank ;  nor  is  it  a  tax  levied  on  each  deposit 
at  a  certain  rate  in  proportion  to  its  amount,  but  it  is  as- 
sessed on  the  amount  of  all  deposits  in  the  bank  ascertained 
and  fixed  by  the  average  sums  which  it  has  had  in  its  hands, 
during  the  six  months  preceding  a  specified  day.  It  is  noth- 
ing more  or  less  than  a  tax  on  the  bank  itself,  upon  its  fran- 
chise, and  assessed  in  consideration  of  the  privileges  thus 
conferred  bv  the  State.    *    *    * 

Savings  banks  are  not  banks  of  discount,  nor  have  they 
any  capital  stock.  The  interest,  therefore,  due  the  depositors 
is  derived  solely  from  the  use  or  investments  of  deposits,, 
and  any  tax  imposed  on  such  banks,  must  necessarily,  to 
some  extent,  diminish  the  interest  to  be  received  by  deposi- 
tors and  may  be  said  therefore  to  be  paid  out  of  the  interest 
due  to  them.  So  the  tax  imposed  by  the  Act  in  Sterling's 
Case,  and  the  tax  imposed  by  the  Act  of  1874,  are  not  in  our 


56  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

opinion  taxes  on  the  property  of  savings  banks  held  by  them 
in  trust  for  depositors,  but  a  tax  on  the  franchises*  which 
such  institutions  enjoy  through  the  favor  of  the  State.  *  *  * 

We  should  hold  that  the  deposits  of  the  appellee  invested 
in  ground  rents  are  not  exempt  from  the  operation  of  the 
Act  of  1874,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  Act  was  passed  after 
the  decision  in  Sterling's  Case,  upon  the  construction  of  a 
prior  Act  identical  in  terms  with  the  Act  of  1874.  If  by  the 
latter  Act,  the  Legislature  meant  to  tax  the  deposits,  whether 
invested  in  non-taxable  securities,  or  ground  rents  on  which 
taxes  were  paid  by  the  leasehold  owner,  this  intention,  in 
view  of  the  decision  in  Sterling's  Case,  ought  to  have  been 
expressed  in  clear  and  explicit  terms.  State  v.  Central  Sav- 
ings Bank,  67  Md.  290. 

Distilled  Spirits.  There  shall  be  levied  upon  all  dis- 
tilled spirits  as  personal  property  the  same  rate  of  taxa- 
tion which  is  imposed  by  the  laws  of  the  State  on  other 
property  for  State  and  County  purposes.  Code  1911,  Art. 
81,  sec.  218. 

The  tax  upon  distilled  spirits  is  not  on  the. property,  but 
upon  the  owner.    Monticello  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  90  Md.  423. 

As  to  the  duty  of  distillers,  custodians  and  owners  of 
bonded  warehouses  to  make  storage  reports  to  the  State  Tax 
Commission,  and  the  duty  of  the  Commission  to  report  val- 
uations to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  and  County  Commis- 
sioners, see  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sees.  219,  220  and  222. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  57 

Since  the  distiller  is  the  agent  of  the  State  to  collect  such 
taxes,  the  Tax  Collector  is  not  authorized  to  enforce  pay- 
ment thereof  by  distraint  upon  the  property  of  the  distiller 
himself,  but  the  remedy  is  by  action  at  law  against  him  upon 
his  statutory  obligation  to  pay  the  taxes.  Fozvble  v.  Kemp, 
92  M'd.  630. 

Any  warehouseman,  agent  or  custodian  paying  the  tax 
on  distilled  spirits  shall  have  a  lien  upon  the  distilled  spirits 
covered  by  such  tax.     Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  226. 

The  requirement  that  the  distiller  shall  pay  the  tax  for 
the  owner  is  not  unlawful  or  unreasonable,  the  Legislature 
having  the  power  to  require  him  as  custodian  to  pay  the 
tax  on  the  property  in  his  possession,  although  owned  by 
unknown  persons  holding  warehouse  receipts ;  he  is  made 
the  agent  of  the  State  to  collect  the  tax  and  receives  a  lien 
on  the  property  to  secure  repayment.  Carstairs  v.  Cochran, 
95  Md.  488 ;  Monticello  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  90  Md.  419. 

Domicile  of  Persons  and  Presence  of  Property  in  State 
the  Test  of  Taxability.  When  a  person  is  not  domiciled 
within  the  State  and  property  is  not  within  its  borders  the 
State  can  afford  no  protection  to  either  and  can  give  no 
equivalent  in  return  for  taxes  paid.  Necessarily,  all  real 
estate  in  the  State  is  taxable  wherever  the  owner  may  be, 
but  the  law  assumes  that  when  a  person  leaves  the  State 
his  personal  property  goes  with  him.  By  the  universal  law 
of  all  civilized  nations  property  in  action  has  its  habitat  at 
the  domicile  of  the  owner.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Patterson, 
50  Md.  354. 


58  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

It  is  the  rule  of  law  that  the  possession  of  personal  prop- 
erty follows  the  owner  to  wherever  he  may  be  domiciled. 
Latrobe  v.  Baltimore,  19  Md.  13. 

The  mere  intention  of  a  person  to  change  his  residence 
will  not  exempt  him  from  taxation,  and,  to  make  his  in- 
tention effective,  he  must  actually  remove  from  the  county 
or  city  before  the  annual  levy  is  made.  Stoddert  v.  Ward, 
31  Md.  562. 

Double  Taxation.  A  double  tax  is  not  necessarily  void. 
The  Declaration  of  Rights  requires  equality  in  taxation,  and 
in  so  far  as  a  double  tax  destroys  that  equality,  it  is  in- 
valid, but  not  otherwise.  Cooley  on  Taxation,  389.  U.  S. 
Elec.  Pozver  &  Light  Co.  v.  State,  79  Md.  71. 

Easements  Enjoyed  by  the  Consolidated  Gas  Company 
in  the  Use  of  the  Beds  of  Public  Streets  are  Taxable — 
Distinction  Between  Franchise  and  Easement..  The  Con- 
solidated Gas  Company,  of  Baltimore,  appealed  from  a 
judgment  of  the  City  Court,  in  1905,  confirming  an  addi- 
tional assessment  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  of  $6,00n,o00, 
which  sum  comprised  valuations  of  real  estate,  "services" 
and  gas  mains,  pipes  and  other  construction  located  in,  on, 
under  and  over  the  public  highways  of  Baltimore  City,  in 
eluding  the  value  of  the  easement  enjoyed  by  the  Company 
in  said  highways.  The  contention  of  the  appellant  was  that 
there  was  no  existing  enactment  which  authorized  the  Ap- 
peal Tax  Court  to  tax  the  incorporeal  right  which  the  Com- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  59 

pany  called  a  franchise,  but  which  was  claimed  by  the  City 
to  be  an  easement.    *    *    * 

A  franchise  does  not  involve  an  interest  in  land — it  is  not 
real  estate,  but  a  privilege  which  may  be  owned  without  the 
acquisition  of  real  property  at  all.  The  use  of  a  franchise 
may  require  the  occupancy,  or  even  the  ownership,  of  land ; 
but  that  circumstance  does  not  make  the  franchise  itself  an 
interest  in  land.  Because  land  may  be  required  in  putting 
a  franchise  into  effective  operation,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  franchise  is  land,  or  an  interest  in  land.  But  an  ease- 
ment is  quite  a  different  thing.  It  is  essentially  and  in- 
herently an  interest  in  land.  It  is  an  estate — a  dominant 
estate  imposed  upon  a  servient  tenement.  *  *  *  *  * 

What  then  is  the  thing  assessed  and  taxed  in  this  case? 
Is  it  the  mere  right  to  occupy  the  streets  below  the  surface 
with  mains  and  pipes — which  is  the  franchise — or  is  it  the 
easement  acquired,  through  the  franchise,  by  the  actual 
occupancy  of  the  highways  in  that  manner?  *  *  * 

Ostensibly  it  is  the  latter ;  and  the  right  to  include  the 
value  of  that  easement  as  an  element  in  fixing  an  assess- 
ment on  the  tangible  property  employed  in  availing  of  that 
easement  is  no  longer  an  open  question  in  this  State  since 
the  decision  in  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Union  R.  R.  Co.,  50 
Md.  274.  In  that  case  this  Court  hekl :  "But  few  of  the  rail- 
roads of  the  country  have  anything  more  than  a  mere  ease- 
ment in  the  ways  occupied  by  their  roads,  and  we  are  not 


60  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

aware  that  it  has  ever  been  held  that,  because  the  Company 
did  not  own  the  freehold  estate  in  the  bed  of  the  road,  noth- 
ing but  the  mere  superstructure  thereon  could  be  assessed 
to  the  Company;  the  rule  would  seem  to  be  clearly  other- 
wise, and  that  an  easement  enjoyed  in  the  bed  of  a  public 
street  may  be  taxed  as  real  estate."  We  need  not  go  beyond 
Maryland  to  find  cases  to  support  the  proposition  that  the 
easement  possessed  by  a  corporation  in  a  public  thorough- 
fare may  be  taxed  as  real  estate.  See  Swan  v.  Kemp,  97 
Md.  692 ;  Dundalk  &c.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Smith,  97  Md.  .181 ;  United 
Ry.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  93  Md.  633 ;  State  v.  N.  C.  Ry.  Co., 
90  Md.  473 ;  Smith  v.  School  Commissioners,  81  Md.  516 ; 
P.  W.  &  B.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Appeal  Tax  Court,  50  Md.  409. 

It  follows  that  the  property  or  estate  which  the  Gas  Com- 
pany has  in  the  highways  of  Baltimore  is  an  easement  which 
may  be  properly  assessed  to  the  Company  as  real  estate; 
there  was  no  error  committed  by  the  City  Court  in  respect 
to  this  question.  Consolidated  Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  101 
Md.  545-550. 

• 

The  Appeal  Tax  Court  added  together  the  dividend  pay- 
ing obligations  and  capital  stock  of  the  Company  as  repre- 
senting the  aggregate  value  of  the  corporation's  property. 
The  value  of  the  Company's  real  and  personal  property 
was  deducted  from  this  total,  the  remainder  being  divided 
by  two,  leaving  $6,000,000,  and  this  sum  was  fixed  as  the 
valuation  of  the  easement.  Held  by  the  Court  that  this 
method  of  assessment  was  unlawful  and  capricious.     Ibid. 

Corporate  bonds,  secured  by  mortgage  on  lands  in  this 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  61 

State  and  owned  by  residents,  are,  under  Code,  Art.  81, 
sees.  2,  92  and  210,  assessable  to  the  owners,  and  there  is 
no  statute  authorizing  the  taxation  of  the  same  bonds  as 
being  a  part  of  the  corporate  assets.    Ibid. 

Though  he  may  not  be  familiar  with  real  estate  values  in 
Baltimore,  a  person  who  has  been  a  student  of  taxation, 
and  has  made  valuations  of  easements  in  other  cities,  and 
who  has  studied  the  extent,  size  and  mileage  of  the  Con- 
solidated Gas  Company  mains,  and  is  informed  as  to  the 
earnings  of  the  Company,  is  qualified  to  testify  as  an  expert 
as  to  the  value  of  such  easement.  Consolidated  Gas  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  105  Md.  56. 

The  value  of  an  easement  has  no  necessary  relation  to  the 
value  of  the  land  in  the  neighborhood.    Ibid. 

It  is  competent  for  the  Baltimore  City  Court  to  summon 
the  Judges  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  to  testify  as  to  how 
valuations  were  made.     Ibid. 

Electric  Lighting  Company  not  a  "Manufacturing  In- 
dustry" Within  the  Meaning  of  the  Statute.  A  bill  in 
equity  was  filed  by  the  appellant  to  enjoin  the  City  o'f  Fred- 
erick from  collecting  certain  taxes  alleged  by  them  to  be 
due.  In  1891,  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  Frederick  City, 
under  authority  of  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  1882, 
passed  an  ordinance  providing  "that  the  machinery  and 
manufacturing  apparatus  of  all  manufacturing  industries 
established  within  the  corporate  limits  of  Frederick  within 
two  years  next  succeeding  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this 


62  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

ordinance  and  actually  employed  or  used  in  the  business  of 
manufacturing  in  Frederick  City"  shall  be  exempt  from  tax- 
ation for  five  years.  The  bill  alleges  that  the  appellant 
located  its .  manufacturing  plant  in  Frederick  City  within 
the  prescribed  time  and  has  since  then  been  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  electricity.  The  appellees  filed  an  answer 
in  which  they  allege  that  the  plant  of  the  appellant  is  not 
included  in  the  exemption,  as  it  is  not  comprehended  within 
the  terms  "manufacturing  industries."  The  controversy 
therefore  raised  by  the  pleadings  is  whether  an  electric  light 
company  is  a  manufacturing  industry  within  the  meaning 
of  that  ordinance.  ***** 

The  purpose  of  the  law  is  declared  by  the  ordinance  to 
be  ''for  the  encouragement  of  the  growth  and  development 
of  manufactures  and  manufacturing  industries  in  Frederick 
City."  The  exemption  embraces  "the  machinery  and  man- 
ufacturing apparatus  of  all  manufacturing  industries"  estab- 
lished in  the  city  within  two  years.  Now,  would  the  term 
"manufacturing  industries"  strike  the  mind  of  the  average 
man  when  used  in  the  above  connection  as  including  an  elec- 
tric light  plant?  In  advertising  a  city  or  town  as  a  desira- 
ble place  for  manufactures,  the  fact  that  it  was  lighted  with 
electricity  might  be  mentioned,  just  as  good  roads  or  streets, 
pure  water,  healthy  climate  or  other  attractions  might  be, 
but  if  a  list  of  its  manufactures  were  to  include  the  electric 
light  plant  amongst  them,  it  would  be  looked  upon  as  an 
effort  to  enlarge  the  number  beyond  what  the  fact  justified. 
If  a  company  proposed  to  manufacture  armatures,  lamps  or 
other  electrical  appliances,  one  would  think  of  it  as  a  man- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  63 

ufacturing  industry,  but  not  so  of  an  ordinary  electric  plant 
for  furnishing  electricity.  ***** 

An  electric  light  plant  does  not  require  the  employment 
of  "much  labor" — on  the  contrary,  two  or  three  men  can 
probably  run  the  "machinery  and  manufacturing  apparatus" 
of  a  company  that  only  runs  at  night  and  four  or  five  could 
run  them  day  and  night,  and  it  would  hardly  be  contended 
that  those  terms  would  apply  to  and  exempt  the  poles,  wires, 
lamps,  etc.,  of  an  electric  light  company.  Nor  is  there  likely 
to  be  any  considerable  increase  in  the  employment  of  labor 
connected  with  it.  A  manufacturing  establishment,  such  as 
we  ordinarily  think  of  in  connection  with  that  term,  may 
have  a  very  small  beginning  and  develop  into  a  large  con- 
cern, and  thereby  benefit  the  community  by  the  employment 
of  labor  and  distribution  of  large  sums  of  money,  but  it  is 
not  probable,  if  possible,  that  such  results  could  ever  follow 
from  an  electric  light  plant.  We  do  not,  therefore,  think 
that  an  electric  light  company  is  within  the  object  or  con- 
templation of  the  ordinance  before  us,  and  it  is  not  the  kind 
of  an  enterprise  meant  by  manufacturing  industry,  as  there- 
in used.  Electric  Light  Company  v.  Frederick  City,  8-1-  Md. 
599. 

It  would  be  an  unwarranted  construction  of  this  ordinance 
to  say  that  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  Frederick  intended 
to  include  this  company  within  what  are  ordinarily  termed 
"manufacturing  companies"  when  the  statute  authorizing 
the  creation  of  such  companies  as  the  appellant  excluded 
them  from  the  class  by  placing  them  in  another  class.    We 


64  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

think  it  clear  that  an  electric  light  company  is  not  included 
within  the  terms  "manufacturing  industry"  as  used  in  this 
ordinance.    Ibid. 

Equity  Jurisdiction  in  Tax  Cases.  Equity  will  not  in- 
terfere by  injunction  to  restrain  the  collection  of  a  tax  il- 
legally assessed  when  the  revenue  statute  provides  an  ade- 
quate remedy  for  the  party  aggrieved  by  such  assessment. 
Gittings  v.  Baltimore,  95  Md.  419. 

An  equity  court  has  jurisdiction  to  enjoin  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  from  classifying  property  in  the 
Annex  at  the  city  rate  when  said  property  has  not  been  so 
improved  to  bring  it  under  the  city  rate.  Baltimore  v.  Gail, 
106  Md.  684. 

The  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  has  the  power 
to  increase  the  assessment  on  land  after  a  court  of  equity 
has  passed  a  decree  directing  the  sale  of  the  land  and  ap- 
pointing a  trustee  to  make  same.  Baltimore  v.  Gittings, 
113  Md.  119. 

Has  a  court  of  equity  jurisdiction  to  restrain  the  levy 
and  collection  of  a  tax  attempted  to  be  levied  and  collected 
illegally  ?  To  this  interrogatory  there  can  be  but  one  answer 
and  that  must  be  in  the  affirmative.  Holland  v.  Baltimore, 
11  Ml.  197;  Joesting  v.  Baltimore,  97  Md.  594;  also  see 
Baltimore  City  Charter,  section  170. 

When  land  or  other  property  is  under  the  control  of  a 
court  of  equity,  the  ordinary   statutory   remedies    for  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  65 

enforcement  of  taxes  levied  upon,  or  payable  in  respect  of 
such  property,  are  suspended,  and  payment  must  be  re- 
ceived through  the  authority  of  the  equity  court.  Blakistone 
v.  State,  117  Md.  244. 

When  property  is  in  an  equity  court  and  taxes  are  due 
thereon  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Collector  to  apply  to  the  Court 
to  authorize  their  payment.  Prince  George's  Co.  v.  Clarke, 
36  Md.  219. 

Taxes  due  on  the  property  of  an  insolvent  estate  are 
payable  out  of  a  fund  in  the  hands  of  the  receivers.  Marine 
Bank  v.  Heller,  94  Md.  213. 

In  Joesting  v.  Baltimore,  97  Md.  590,  it  was  distinctly 
held  that  a' court  of  equity  has  jurisdiction  to  restrain  the 
levying  of  taxes  which  if  levied  would  be  unlawful.  The 
objection  in  this  case  is  against  the  validity  of  the  assess- 
ment fixed  in  the  Act  itself,  and  a  court  of  equity  had  full 
power  to  entertain  it,  under  the  averrnents  of  the  bill  filed 
in  the  case.    Lcser  v.  Wagner,  120  Md.  674. 

While  individuals  cannot  sue  to  restrain  alleged  public 
wrongs  unless  they  have  a  special  interest  requiring  pro- 
tection, yet  if  the  unauthorized  act  complained  of  would 
result  in  an  increase  of  taxation,  those  upon  whom  this 
burden  would  fall  constitute  a  special  class  with  an  interest 
distinct  from  that  of  the  general  public,  and  are  entitled 
to  seek  relief  by  injunction.  Weller  v.  Mueller,  120  Md. 
638. 


66  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

If  the  Act  be  invalid  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the 
power  and  duty  of  a  court  of  equity,  at  the  suit  of  a  tax- 
payer, to  grant  the  relief  prayed  for  in  this  bill  because 
the  acts  therein  complained  of  would  be  ultra  vires  and 
greatly  injurious  to  the  plaintiffs  as  taxpayers.  The  power 
of  a  court  of  equity,  under  such  circumstances,  to  interfere 
at  the  suit  of  a  taxpayer  and  arrest  the  unauthorized  acts  of 
a  municipal  corporation,  has  been  settled  in  a  long  line  of 
decisions  of  this  Court.  It  was  definitely  settled  in  Balti- 
more v.  Gill,  31  Md.  375,  and  the  principles  there  announced 
have  never  been  departed  from  in  this  State.  Painter  v. 
Mattfeldt,  119  Md.  471. 

Error  as  to  Name  in  Tax  Assessment.  When  property 
owned  by  the  Chesapeake  Beach  Ry.  Co.  is  erroneously 
assessed  to  the  Chesapeake  Beach  Improvement  Co.,  the 
former  Company,  having  knowledge  of  the  assessment,  is 
not  entitled  to  apply  for  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  col- 
lection of  the  tax  on  the  property,  but  should  apply  to  the 
proper  authorities  to  correct  the  error.  Moffett  v.  Calvert 
County,  97  Md.  266. 

Errors  of  Tax  Officials.  In  the  execution  of  the  revenue 
laws,  the  constitution  and  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  have 
provided  for  the  selection  of  certain  public  officers  charged 
with  the  duty  of  assessing  and  collecting  the  public  taxes; 
if  any  errors,  omissions  or  irregularities  occur  in  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duties,  such  errors  may  be  corrected  by  the 
means  which  the  tax  laws  provide.  Stoddert  v.  Ward,  31 
Md.  563. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  67 

Escaped  Property.  The  fact  that  property  has  escaped 
assessment,  or  been  omitted  from  the  assessment  books  when 
it  was  assessable  under  the  law,  being  valued  and  placed  in 
the  books  after  the  levy  has  been  made,  cannot  affect  the 
right  of  the  State  or  municipality  to  collect  the  tax,  nor  will 
it  release  the  owner.    Hopkins  v.  Van  Wyck,  80  Md.  7. 

Evidence  in  Tax  Appeals.  When  the  question  is  as  to 
the  validity  of  the  valuation  of  property  for  assessment 
and  taxation,  the  assessor  who  made  or  recommended  the 
assessment  is  entitled  on  direct  examination  to  mention 
the  sales,  leases  and  mortgages  of  other  similar  property 
upon  which  he  based  his  valuation,  although  he  had  been 
informed  of  such  sales,  etc.,  by  other  persons,  having  him- 
self no  personal  knowledge  of  them,  or  from  an  inspection 
of  the  land  records.    Baltimore  v.  Hurlock,  113  Md.  674. 

A  plat  made  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  showing  the  square 
or  block  of  ground  in  which  the  property  in  question  is 
located  and  the  assessment  of  other  lots  of  ground  in  that 
block,  and  also  the  data  as  to  sales,  leases  and  mortgages  of 
property  in  the  neighborhood,  of  which  the  assessors  had 
been  informed,  is  admissible  in  evidence.    Ibid. 

Exemptions  From  Taxation.  For  all  property  exempt 
from  taxation  in  Maryland  see  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  4; 
also  Act  of  1914,  Chap.  467,  exempting  $500  worth  of  house- 
hold furniture  and  effects ;  also  Act  of  1914,  Chap.  528,  ex- 
empting from  State  taxes  manufacturing  plants  that  have 


68  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

been  exempted  by  local  legislation  in  the  counties  and  in 
Baltimore  City. 

Exemptions  must  be  strictly  construed.  Appeal  Tax 
Court  v.  Gill,  50  Md.  377.  Exemptions  from  taxation  are 
strictly  construed  and  must  be  clearly  made  out.  Anne 
Arundel  County  v.  Annapolis  R.  R.  Co.,  47  Md.  592. 

The  exemption  of  the  lands  and  buildings  of  a  cemetery 
company  does  not  extend  to  a  fund  invested  in  stocks. 
State  v.  Baltimore  Cemetery  Co.,  52  Md.  639 ;  Appeal  Tax 
Court  v.  St.  Peter's  Academy,  50  Md.  345;  Appeal  Tax 
Court  v.  Baltimore  Cemetery  Co.  50  Md.  435. 

Property  of  the  United  States  is  not  subject  to  state  taxa- 
tion.    Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  151. 

Personal  property  of  officers  and  agents  of  the  Federal 
government  residing  within  the  limits  of  the  Naval  Academy 
grounds  is  exempt  from  taxation.  Chauvcnct  v.  Anne 
Arundel  'County,  3  Md.  259. 

1  Only  the  building  or  parts  thereof  which  are  reasonably 
necessary  for  the  corporate  purposes  of  hospitals,  charita- 
ble or  benevolent  institutions,  etc.,  are  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion. Any  portion  of  the  building  Tlevoted  to  other  pur- 
poses and  rented  out,  and  stocks  and  other  investments  are 
taxable.  Baltimore  v.  Grand  Lodge,  60  *M'd.  281 ;  Appeal 
Tax  Court  v.  St.  Peter's  Academy,  50  Md.  352  ;  United  Rail- 
ways Co.  v.  Baltimore,  93  Md.  634. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  t>9 

The  exemption  from  taxation  granted  by  a  company's 
charter  has  no  application  to  a  paving  tax.  Baltimore  v. 
Greenmount  Cemetery  Co.  7  Md.  534. 

Certain  classes  of  property  may  be  exempted  from  taxa- 
tion within  reasonable  limits.  There  must,  however,  be 
no  arbitrary  discrimination  between  properties  of  the  same 
kind.  An  exemption  from  taxation  of  a  wharf  owned  by 
a  religious  corporation  held  invalid  because  it  created  an 
arbitrary  discrimination  and  because  it  was  in  conflict  with 
Art.  3,  sec  33,  of  the  State  Constitution.  Baltimore  v.  Starr 
Church,  106  Md.   281. 

The  fact  that  only  a  portion  of  a  graveyard  is  occupied  by 
graves  does  not  limit  the  exemption  to  the  portion  so  occu- 
pied. Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  St.  Peter's  Academy,  50  Md. 
353. 

The  fact  that  the  personal  property  of  a  domestic  cor- 
poration whose  stock  is  subject  to  taxation  in  Maryland  is 
exempt  under  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  4,  does  not  effect  the  lia- 
bility to  taxation  of  the  personal  property  of  a  foreign  cor- 
poration whose  stock  is  taxable  here.  W ilk  ens  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, 103  *Md.  309. 

Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  4,  which  exempts  from  taxation 
the  personal  property  of  corporations  whose  capital  stock 
is  taxed,  precludes  the  taxation  of  the  machinery  of  a  manu- 
facturing company  as  a  part  of  its  real  estate.  Anne  Arun- 
del County  v.  Baltimore  Sugar  Co.,  99  Md.  485.  See  Code 
1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  164. 


70  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Where  a  railroad  exempted  from  taxation  absorbs  an- 
other railroad  not  so  exempted,  the  property  of  the  latter 
is  still  liable  to  taxation.  B.  C.  &  A.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ocean  City, 
89  Md.  98.  #A  grant  of  exemption  to  a  railroad  company 
does  not  pass  to  the  purchaser  of  the  property  of  said  com- 
pany under  foreclosure.  B.  C.  &  A.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wicomico 
County,  103  Md.  277. 

Foreign  Corporations  Subject  to  State  Laws.  Any  cor- 
poration not  chartered  by  the  laws  of  this  State  which  shall 
transact  business  therein  shall  be  deemed  to  hold  and  ex- 
ercise franchise  within  this  State,  and  shall  be  liable  to  suit 
in  any  of  the  Courts  of  this  State  on  any  dealings  or  trans- 
actions therein.     Code  1911,  Art.  23,  sec.  409. 

The  general  rule  is  well  settled  that  foreign  corporations 
which  are  permitted  to  come  into  a  state  for  the  prosecution 
of  their  business  must  be  held  to  have  accepted  the  restric- 
tions and  duties  imposed  upon  them  by  the  laws  of  the  State 
they  enter,  and  they  can  claim  no  other  or  greater  rights  or 
privileges  than  these  accorded  the  domestic  corporations. 
Centred  Ga.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Eichberg,  107  Md.  372 ;  Boggs  v. 
Inter-American,  Etc.  Co.,  105  *M'd.  371 ;  Harding  v.  Ameri- 
can Glucose  Co.,  182  Ills.  551 ;  Horn  Silver  Mining  Co.  v. 
State  of  New  York,  143  U.  S.  315.  In  the  last  case  cited 
the  Supreme  Court  observed:  "It  does  not  lie  in  any 
foreign  corporation  to  complain  that  it  is  subjected  to  the 
same  law  with  the  domestic  corporation."  Hannis  Distilling 
Co.  v.  Baltimore,  114  Md.  684. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  71 

Foreign  Owned  Securities.  Code,  Art.  81,  sees.  141, 
et.  seq.,  provides  for  the  taxation  of  shares  in  corpora- 
tions created  by  this  State  and  directs  that  when  such  shares 
are  owned  by  non-residents  they  shall  be  valued  to  the 
owners  in  the  county  or  city  in  which  the  principal  office  of 
the  corporation  is  situated.  The  corporation  is  required 
to  pay  the  tax  for  the  shareholders  and  is  authorized  to 
charge  them  with  the  amount  thereof.  Plaintiff,  non-resi- 
dent, filed  bill  to  restrain  collection.  Held  that  such  shares 
of  stock  are  properly  situated  in  this  State  and  are  liable 
to  taxation  here  although  owned  by  a  non-resident,  the  situs 
of  the  stock  for  taxation  being  fixed  by  statute  at  the  princi- 
pal office  of  the  corporation.  Corry  v.  Baltimore,  96  Md. 
310-322. 

Notice  of  the  assessment  given  to  the  corporation  itself 
is  sufficient  and  a  notice  to  each  non-resident  shareholder 
is  unnecessary,  because  in  the  taxation  of  its  shares  the 
corporation  is  treated  by  the  statute  as  representing  the 
shareholders.     Ibid. 

We  hold,  therefore,  that  the  shares  of  stock  held  and 
owned  by  the  appellant,  a  non-resident  of  the  State,  in  a 
Maryland  corporation,  are  liable  to  taxation,  under  the 
statutes  of  this  State,  and  that  the  tax  is  not  in  violation  of 
either  the  State  or  Federal  Constituion.    Ibid. 

No  stocks,  bonds,  mortgages,  certificates  or  other  evidences 
of  indebtedness  of  any  company  or  corporation  situate 
within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  which  are  owned 
or    held    by    persons    residing    without    said    limits,    shall 


72  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

be  subject  to  taxation.  Baltimore  City  Charter,  p.  23.  Heid 
in  Corry  v.  Baltimore,  96  Md.  310-322,  that  this  does  not 
apply  to  non-residents  of  the  State. 

Money  and  credits  belonging  to  a  non-resident  could  be 
permanently  located  within  a  state  for  purposes  of  taxation 
when  the  same  are  invested  and  controlled  by  a  resident 
agent  who  has  power  to  reinvest,  or  at  his  discretion,  change 
the  form  of  the  investment.  Walker  v.  Jack,  88  Fed.  Rep. 
576. 

Foreign  Securities.  This  State  lias  the  power  to  tax  the 
bonds  and  certificates  of  debt  of  other  states  and  of  cor- 
porations created  by  them  when  held  by  residents  of  Mary- 
land, although  such  bonds  and  certificates  are  exempted 
from  taxation  by  the  state  issuing  them  or  creating  the 
corporation.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Gill,  50  Md.  396  :  Appeal 
Tax  Court  v.  Patterson,  50  Md.  354. 

Franchise — Definition  of.  A  franchise  is  a  special  priv- 
ilege conferred  by  the  State  on  certain  persons  and  which 
does  not  belong  to  them  of  common  right,  and  although  the 
franchise  of  a  company  may  be  considered  in  one  sense 
property,  and  valuable  property,  yet  it  is  not  property  in 
the  meaning  of  that  term  as  used  in  the  Bill  of  Rights. 
State  v.  P.  W.  &  B.  R.  R.  Co.,  45  Md.  379. 

Franchise  Tax  on  Gross  Receipts  of  a  Guaranty  Com- 
pany not  Payable  on  Receipts  from  Business  Outside  of 
the  State.     This  is  a  suit  by  the  State  against  the  United 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  73 

States  Fidelity  and  Guaranty  Company,  a  Maryland  corpora- 
tion, to  recover  a  State  franchise  tax  of  two  per  cent,  of  its 
gross  receipts  claimed  to  be  due  by  the  appellee  to  the  ap- 
pellant for  the  year  1898.  The  only  question  presented  v\ 
this  case  is  whether  the  franchise  tax  of  two  per  cent, 
is  to  be  levied  under  the  statute  upon  the  total  gross  re- 
ceipts or  earnings  of  the  defendant  company,  from  its  entire 
business  or  whether  the  tax  is  to  be  limited  and  imposed  only 
against  the  gross  receipts  or  earnings  of  the  business  done 
by  the  company  within  the  State  of  Maryland  and  not  out- 
side of  the  limits  of  the  State.   *    *   * 

It  is  well  settled  that  in  the  construction  of  a  statute  the 
intention  of  the  Legislature  is  to  prevail  and  when  ascertained 
it  should  be  followed,  although  such  a  construction  might 
seem  to  be  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the  statute.  It  is  obvious 
we  think  that  a  proper  construction  of  the  statute  in  this  case 
limits  the  franchise  tax  to  the  business  done  by  the  defen- 
dant company  within  this  State,  and  it  was  not  the  legisla- 
tive intent  that  it  should  have  an  extra  territorial  effect. 
This  construction  of  the  statute  is  approved  by  a  number  of 
cases  construing  similar  Acts  limiting  the  tax  upon  the 
gross  receipts  or  earnings  of  similar  companies.  In  the  case 
of  Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Seibert,  142  U.  S.  389,  Mr.  Justice 
Lamar,  in  construing  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  "Missouri 
imposing  a  tax  upon  the  gross  receipts  of  express  com- 
panies doing  business  in  that  State,  said,  that  the  statute 
confines  the  tax  which  it  creates  to  the  intrastate  business 
and  in  no  way  relates  to  the  interstate  business  of  the  com- 
pany.   State  v.  U.  S.  Fidelity  Co.  93  Md.  315. 


74  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

The  Legislature  could  not  have  intended  by  the  Act  now 
before  us  to  lay  a  tax  upon  the  business  of  the  company 
done  by  it  without  the  State,  but  its  object  and  purpose  was 
to  confine  and  limit  the  tax  of  its  business  done  within 
the  State.   Ibid. 

Franchises  and  Easements.  The  rights  of  a  gas  com- 
pany to  occupy  with  its  mains  and  pipes  the  streets  and  al- 
leys of  a  city  is  a  franchise,  but  the  actual  occupation  of 
the  streets  in  pursuance  of  the  franchise  is  an  easement  in 
land,  and  such  easement  may  be  assessed  for  taxation  as 
real  estate  owned  by  the  company.  Baltimore  v.  Consoli- 
dated Gas  Company,  101  Md.  541. 

"Goods  and  Chattels  Permanently  Located" — The 
Meaning  Thereof.  The  firm  of  Baker  Bros.  &  Co.  was 
taxed  for  1892  in  the  sum  of  $80,000  on  a  stock  of  goods 
in  their  store  in  Baltimore  City,  and  horses  to  the  value  of 
$750.  The  firm  appealed  to  the  City  Court:  (1)  on  the 
ground  that  two  of  the  partners  lived  in  Baltimore  County, 
and  the  third  party  who  lived  in  Baltimore  had  only  a  three- 
tenths  interest  in  the  business,  and  that  the  firm  could  be 
held  liable  for  taxes  only  on  that  interest  and  (2)  because 
the  goods  were  not  "permanently  located"  in  Baltimore. 
The  City  Court  decided  that  the  City  was  entitled  to  re- 
cover only  the  amount  of  taxes  due  for  the  horses  and 
for  the  three-tenths  interest  of  Charles  E.  Baker,  the  partner 
who  lived  in  Baltimore.  The  appellees  relied  upon  the 
Constitution  of  Maryland,  Art.  3,  sec.  51,  which  provides 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  75 

as  follows :  "The  personal  property  of  residents  of  this 
State  shall  be  subject  to  taxation  in  the  county,  or  city, 
where  the  resident  bona  fide  resides  for  the  greater  part  of 
the  year  for  which  the  tax  may  or  shall  be  levied,  and  not 
elsewhere,  except  chattels  and  goods  permanently  located, 
which  shall  be  taxed  in  the  city  or  county  where  they  are  so 
located."  The  appellees  contended  that  the  goods  were  not 
"permanently  located"  in  Baltimore,  and  that  was  the  prin- 
cipal question  to  be  determined.  *  *  *  Such  goods  and 
chattels  as  compose  the  stock  in  trade  of  the  appellees  are 
not  carried  backward  and  forward  between  Baltimore 
County  and  the  City  of  Baltimore.  As  long  as  they  are  the 
property  of  the  appellees  they  are  located  in  Baltimore 
City,  and  they  are  as  "permanently  located"  there  as  such 
goods  and  chattels  can  be  anywhere.  They  are  not  manu- 
factured or  purchased  to  be  kept  as  long  as  they  remain  in 
existence.  Until  they  are  sold  they  remain  "permanently" 
in  Baltimore.  The  judgment  below  must  be  reversed.  Hop- 
kins v.  Baker,  78  Md.  363. 

If  the  position  of  the  appellees  is  correct,  it  is  possible 
to  have  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  probably  millions, 
of  tangible  personal  property,  goods  and  chattels,  within 
the  City  of  Baltimore,  having  the  benefit  of  its  police  and 
fire  protection  from  year  to  year,  and  yet  not  contribute 
one  cent  to  the  police  or  fire  departments.  Merchants 
transacting  business  in  Cumberland,  Hagerstown,  Frede- 
rick, Annapolis  and  other  cities  and  towns  could  escape  all 
municipal  taxes  on  their  stock  in  trade  by  living  beyond  the 


76  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

corporate  limits,  while  those  living  within  such  limits  must 
pay  the  municipal  as  well  as  state  and  county  taxes  on  their 
stock  in  trade.     Ibid. 

It  is  proper  to  assess  the  property  of  a  firm  to  the  firm 
instead  of  the  individual  partners  thereof  according  to  their 
respective  interests.  As  partnership  assets  are  liable  for 
partnership  debts,  before  they  are  for  the  debts  of  the  in- 
dividual members  of  the  firm,  it  would  be  proper  to  levy  the 
taxes  against  the  firm.     Ibid. 

Gross  Receipts  Tax  on  Corporations  not  a  Double  Tax. 

The  appellant  is  a  company  incorporated  under  the  laws 
of  Maryland.  It  has  a  capital  stock  divided  into  shares  and 
owns  real  and  personal  property.  This  real  property  has 
been  duly  assessed,  and  the  valuation  has  been  deducted 
from  the  assessed  value  of  the  capital  stock  as  required  by 
the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  141.  The  State  taxes  upon  the 
company's  real  estate  has  been  paid,  and  so  also  have  the 
State  taxes  on  its  shares  of  stock.  In  addition  to  these 
taxes  the  State  levied,  under  the  Act  of  1890,  Chap.  559, 
a  further  tax  of  one-half  of  one  per  cent,  on  the  gross  re- 
ceipts of  this  and  other  like  companies,  and  for  a  failure  to 
pay  this  latter  tax  the  pending  suit  was  instituted.  The  de- 
fense relied  on  is  that  the  gross  receipts  tax  is  a  double 
tax  upon  the  same  property,  and  therefore  unauthorized  and 
illegal.  It  is  claimed  to  be  a  double  tax  because  it  is  in- 
sisted that  the  value  which  the  capital  stock  possesses  after 
the  assessed  value  of  the  real  estate  has  been  deducted,  is 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  77 

such  only  as  arises  out  of  the  ownership  and  operation  of 
the  franchises  of  the  company,  and  as  a  tax  on  the  gross 
receipts  is  a  tax  on  the  franchise,  a  tax  on  the  capital  stock, 
whose  value  is  the  ownership  and  use  of  the  company's 
franchises  is  an  additional  tax  on  the  same  thing.    *    *    * 

But  this  argument  is  obviously  fallacious.  The  Tax  Com- 
missioner is  required  by  the  statutes  to  deduct  from  the 
aggregate  value  of  all  the  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of 
banks  and  other  corporations  the  assessed  value  of  the  real 
estate  owned  by  the  company,  and  to  divide  the  residuum 
by  the  number  of  the  shares  of  stock,  and  the  quotient  is 
declared  to  be  the  taxable  value  of  each  share  for  state 
purposes  of  taxation.  Upon  the  valuation  thus  ascertained 
the  state  tax  is  levied.  But  the  tax  is  not  a  tax  upon  the 
stock  or  upon  the  corporation,  but  upon  the  owners  of  the 
shares  of  stock,  though  the  officers  of  the  corporation  are 
made  the  agents  of  the  State  for  the  collection  of  the  State 
tax.  When  the  corporation  pays  the  tax  upon  these  shares 
it  pays  not  upon  its  own  property,  nor  for  the  company,  but 
upon  the  property  of  each  stockholder,  by  whom  the  com- 
pany is  entitled  to  be  reimbursed.  The  tax  is  not  levied 
upon  the  corporation  at  all,  but  on  the  owner  of  the  shares. 
United  States  Electric  Light  and  Power  Co.  v.  State,  79  Md. 
70.    See  also  State  v.  R.  R.  Co.  40  Md.  51. 

This  tax  and  the  gross  receipts  tax  are  not  upon  the 
same  individual,  natural  or  artificial,  in  consequence  of  his 
or  its  ownership  of  the  same  property,  notwithstanding  the 


78  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

franchises  of  the  corporation  in  some  measure  give  value 
to  the  shares  of  stock.    Ibid. 

The  state  tax  on  gross  receipts  of  railroad  companies 
partly  within  this  State  is  a  franchise  tax  measured  in 
amount  by  the  extent  of  the  business  of  the  companies,  and 
is  not  a  tax  on  the  goods  transported  or  the  tolls  derived 
therefrom.  Such  a  tax  is  valid,  and  is  not  an  interference 
with  or  a  regulation  of  interstate  commerce,  so  as  to  conflict, 
with  the  exclusive  right  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce 
among  the  several  states.  Cumberland  &  Penna.  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  State,  92  Mi.  668. 

The  gross  receipts  tax  is  a  tax  upon  the  franchise  of 
railroad  companies,  measured  by  the  extent  of  their  busi- 
ness, and  not  a  tax  upon  property.  State  v.  P.  IV.  &  B. 
R.  R.  Co.,  45  Md.  379. 

Ground  Rent  Investments  by  Savings  Banks  not  Taxable. 

The  question  is  whether  the  deposits  of  the  appellee  in- 
vested in  ground  rents,  reserved  under  leases  of  99  years 
renewable  forever,  on  property  which  by  the  law  of  this 
State  is  assessed  to,  and  the  taxes  thereon  paid  by  the  lease- 
hold  owner,  are  taxable  under  the  Act  of  1874,  Chap.  483, 
sec.  85.  The  contention  is  that  the  tax  thereby  imposed 
is  in  effect  a  tax  on  property  held  by  the  appellee  in  trust 
for  its  depositors,  and  to  hold  that  the  deposits  invested 
in  ground  rents  are  liable  to  the  payment  of  this  tax,  would 
be  to  subject  the  same  property  to  double  taxation  which  is 
forbidden  by  the  State  Constitution.     And  in  view  of  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.   :  79 

decision  in  State  v  Sterling,  20  Md.  502,  this  contention  is, 
we  think,  well  founded.  State  v.  Central  Savings  Bank, 
G7  Md.  292. 

Guardians  Responsible  for  Taxes.  There  would  seem  to 
no  room  for  doubt  that  the  bond  of  a  guardian  is  liable  for 
taxes  levied  on  property  in  his  hands,  while  he  continues  to 
be  such  guardian.  *  *  If  it  were  not  so,  any  guardian, 
resident  or  non-resident,  who  is  not  financially  responsible, 
who  held  property  that  could  not  be  reached  by  a  tax  col- 
lector, could  collude  with  his  ward  and  thus  let  the  property 
escape  taxation  indefinitely.  Baldwin  v.  State,  89  Md.  587. 
See  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  70. 

Though  the  guardian  has  settled  his  final  account  and 
delivered  the  property  to  his  ward  after  the  taxes  were 
levied  that  fact  will  not  relieve  his  sureties  from  liability 
therefor.     Ibid. 

Hearsay  Evidence  in  Arriving  at  Valuations.  Alfred  D. 
Bernard,  one  of  the  special  assessors  to  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court,  testified  that  he  passed,  in  the  performance  of  his 
duties  as  such  assessor,  upon  the  assessment  from  which 
this  appeal  was  taken.  He  testified  upon  his  direct  exami- 
nation that  the  assessors  personally  examined  the  property, 
and  "were  guided  by  their  personal  knowledge  of  sales  and 
rentals  in  the  neighborhood;  also  by  sales  and  rentals  of 
which  they  had  information  from  owners  and  tenants ;  also 
by  sales  recorded  in  the  special  assessors'  'card  index,'  and 
from  auctioneers."     Being  asked  to  give  the  data  relied  on 


80  Maryland  IUx  Digest. 

by  him,  of  which  he  was  informed  by  others,  an  objection 
to  the  question  was  sustained  by  the  lower  Court  and  ex- 
ception taken.  The  ground  of  the  appellee's  objection  to  the 
evidence  sought  to  be  introduced  was  that  it  was  all  hearsay 
and  therefore  inadmissible  in  direct  examination  though  per- 
missible upon  cross-examination.  There  appears  to  be  con- 
siderable diversity  in  the  cases  upon  this  question,  and  re- 
spectable decisions  are  to  be  found  both  ways,  but  we  think 
upon  principle  the  testimony  thus  excluded  should  have  been 
admitted  and  this  view  is  sustained  by  the  weight  of 
authority.  Baltimore  v.  Harlock,  113  Md.  681.  See  Con- 
solidated Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  105  Md.  43 ;  Tidewater 
Canal  Co.  v.  Archer,  9  G  &  J.  317. 

A  skilful  witness  testifying  as  an  expert  may  give  the  rea- 
sons for  his  judgment.  The  basis  may  include  the  result  of 
inquiries  made  of  others,  or  the  fact  of  relevant  sales  known 
to  the  witness.  17  Cyc.  109.  Why  should  not  the  witness 
be  allowed  to  give  its  value,  though  he  said  his  knowledge 
was  derived  upon  hearsay  and  was  not  practical  knowledge? 
The  knowledge  that  the  best  expert  possesses  upon  this  sub- 
ject is  derived  from  hearsay.  Hanover  Water  Co.  v.  Ash- 
land Iron  Co.,  84  Pa.  St.  279.  The  facts  upon  which 
opinions  of  expert  witnesses  as  to  the  value  of  property 
proposed  to  be  taken  in  condemnation  proceedings,  may  be 
stated  by  them  either  in  chief  or  upon  cross-examination. 
Chicago  &  N.  W .  R.  R.  v.  Chicago,  154  111.  G57.  (Quoted, 
with  approval,  by  the  Court  in  Baltimore  v.  Hurlock,  113 
Md.  683.) 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  81 

Hospitals  Under  State  Management  not  Assessable  for 
Expense  of  Opening  Contiguous  Public  Road.     By  the  Act 

of  1876,  Chap.  101,  providing  for  the  completion  of  Wilkens 
avenue,  a  board  of  assessors  was  appointed  to  levy  assess- 
ments upon  the  owners  of  lands  lying  on  or  near  Wilkens 
avenue  for  the  construction  and  completion  thereof  as  in 
their  judgment  may  be  benefited  by  the  construction  and 
completion  of  the  same.  The  sum  of  $1,550  was  assessed 
against  the  Maryland  Hospital  for  the  Insane  on  land  owned 
by  the  hospital  which  was  contiguous  to  Wilkens  avenue. 
The  assessment  being  ratified  by  the  Circuit  Court  for  Balti- 
more County  an  appeal  was  taken  to  this  Court.  ***** 

If  the  land  to  be  affected  by  the  assessment  is. the  property 
of  the  State  used  in  carrying  out  one  of  the  objects  or  func- 
tions of  the  State  Government,  we  do  not  think  it  liable  to 
the  assessment;  unless  the  power  so  to  subject  it  has  been 
clearly  conferred  in  the  said  Act  of  1876,  Chap.  101,  or  it 
has  been  made  so  liable  from  the  rights  and  powers  con- 
ferred on  the  defendant,  or  the  nature  of  its  control  over 
the  property,  under  the  Acts  of  1876,  Chap.  351,  and  1878, 
Chap.  341.  The  declarations  contained  in  the  Acts  of  1878 
seem  to  clearly  imply  the  proprietorship  of  the  State  in  the 
hospital  property;  of  the  hospital  being  an  established  insti- 
tution for  carrying  on  one  of  the  most  needed  charities  of 
the  State ;  and  that  the  said  board  of  managers  is  but  a  public 
agency  of  the  State,  for  the  administration  of  this  particular 
charity,  leave  no  room  to  doubt  what  is  the  legislative  un- 
derstanding of  the  State's  relation  to  the  property,  and  to  the 
means  employed  to  accomplish  its  purpose.  ***** 


82  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

It  seems  manifest  that  the  "managers"  are  what  the  term 
imports — managers  simply  of  the  property,  with  no  power 
to  pledge,  alienate  or  encumber  it;  charged  with  the  duty 
of  its  protection  and  faithful  operation  for  and  on  behalf 
of  the  State,  but  invested  with  no  absolute  ownership  of 
the  property.  It  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  Act  of  1876  to 
levy  an  assessment  against  the  property  of  the  State  and 
as  the  Maryland  Hospital  for  the  Insane  is  palpably  the 
property  of  the  State,  the  assessment  in  this  case  is  un- 
authorized and  void.  Baltimore  County  v.  Maryland  Hos- 
pital for  the  Insane,  62  Md.  133. 

Increase  of  Assessment  of  Land  Decreed  to  be  Sold 
in  Equity.  Plaintiff  owned  for  his  natural  life  a  tract  of 
land  known  as  "Ashburton,"  a  farm  in  Baltimore  County 
that  had  become  a  part  of  the  Annex.  Under  a  decree  of 
a  court  of  equity  he  was  appointed  trustee  to  dispose  of  the 
farm.  A  notice  was  served  on  him  personally,  not  as  trus- 
tee, that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  to 
revise  the  assessment,  whereupon  he  applied  for  an  injunc- 
tion against  the  Appeal  Tax  Court.  By  the  Act  of  1908, 
Chap.  167,  it  is  provided  that  any  person  aggrieved  because 
of  an  assessment  or  classification  made  by  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court  may  within  thirty  days  appeal  to  the  Baltimore  City 
Court  to  review  such  assessment  or  classification,  and  that 
the  proceedings  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall  not  be  de- 
clared void  unless  there  was  an  absence  of  due  notice.  Al- 
though the  notice  in  this  case  was  addressed  individually 
to  the  appellee,  and  not  as  trustee,  nevertheless  by  it  he  was 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  83 

informed  of  the  contemplated  increased  assessment,  and  in 
our  opinion  he  was  the  proper  person  to  whom  the  notice 
should  have  been  addressed,  nor  was  the  permission  of  the 
equity  court  needed  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  to  authorize 
the  increase  of  assessment.  Appellee  was  not  entitled  to 
apply  to  a  court  of  equity,  his  remedy  being  by  the  City 
Court.  Baltimore  v.  Gittings,  113  Md.  119.  See  also  Own- 
ers' Realty  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  112  Md.  477. 

Injunctions  Against  Illegal  Assessments  not  Allowed 
When  There  is  Another  Remedy.  Section  170  of  the  Bal- 
timore City  Charter,  embraces  illegal  assessments  as  a  cause 
of  appeal  to  the  City  Court.  "A  pretended  assessment," 
such  as  the  bill  in  this  case  charges,  is  an  illegal  assessment, 
and  the  City  Court  has  the  same  power  under  this  section 
to  strike  down  a  pretended  or  illegal  assessment  and  to  re- 
store the  actual  or  true  assessment  that  it  has  to  reduce  or 
abate  an  erroneous  or  inequal  assessment.  The  plain  object 
of  this  section  of  the  charter  was  to  provide  a  prompt 
remedy  for  the  correction  of  all  errors  in  the  assessment  of 
taxes  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  and  in  construing  a  similar 
position  in  County  Commrs.  of  Allegany  Co.  v.  Union  Min- 
ing Co.,  61  Md.  545,  this  Court  said  that  even  where  the  tax 
itself  is  illegal,  or  the  tribunal  composing  it  has  exceeded  its 
powers  the  remedy  by  injunction  cannot  even  then  be  in- 
voked if  an  appellate  tribunal  has  been  created  with  power 
to  remedy  the  wrong.  *  *  Where  an  appeal  is  given  to  the 
parties  to  be  affected  by  the  proceedings,  any  irregularities 
therein  are  open  upon  appeal,  and  the  appellate  tribunal  is 


'84  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  proper  one  to  review  and  correct  them.     Gittings  v.  Bal- 
timore, 95  Md.  425. 

Section  164A,  of  the  Baltimore  City  Charter,  gives  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court  power  at  any  time  to  revise  all  valuations 
and  provides  a  prescribed  notice  to  all  property  owners 
whose  assessments  are  to  be  increased.  If,  therefore,  the 
prescribed  notice  of  such  purpose  was  not  in  fact  given,  such 
alteration  and  increase  was  illegal,  and  if  the  failure  to  give 
such  notice  had  been  alleged  in  the  bill  of  complaint  it  cannot 
be  questioned  that  the  injunction  should  have  been  granted. 
*  *  The  failure  to  give  the  prescribed  notice  is  the  only  fact 
that  would  have  given  jurisdiction  to  the  Circuit  Court. 
Ibid. 

Insolvent  Corporations — Taxes  Due  a  Lien  on  Assets. 
Assets  of  an  insolvent  corporation  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver 
are  liable  for  taxes  due.  The  taxes  are  to  be  paid  regard- 
less of  the  fact  as  to  whether  or  not  any  dividends  are  paya- 
ble  to  the  owners  of  the  shares.  The  taxes  so  due  are  a 
prior  lien  on  the  assets  of  the  corporation.  American  Cas- 
ualty Insurance  Co.'s  Case,  82  Md.  535. 

Interest  Bearing  Deposits  Taxable.  Deposits  in  com- 
mercial banks,  trust  companies  and  other  financial  institu- 
tions (not  savings  banks)  are  assessed  at  the  thirty-cent  rate 
by  the  County  Commissioners  of  Maryland  and  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City,  the  bank  books  of  the  de- 
positors being  regarded  as  "evidences  of  debt,"  as  provided 
in  the  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  214.     (Note.— In  October, 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  85 

1911,  Judge  Brashears,  Associate  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court 
for  Carroll  County,  held  that  interest  bearing  deposits  in 
banks  cannot  be  legally  taxed  in  Maryland,  but  the  case 
was  not  taken  to  the  Court  of  Appeals.) 

Interest  on  Tax  Bills.  Taxes  on  both  real  and  personal 
property  "after  they  become  in  arrears  shall  bear  interest 
at  the  rate  of  6  per  centum  per  annum."  Baltimore  City 
Charter,  see.  40 ;  Skinner  Dry  Dock  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  96 
Md.  37. 

We  think  no  interest  should  be  allowed  on  the  claims  for 
taxes  in  this  case.  While  not  precisely  analogous,  the  case 
of  Hutchinson  v.  Liverpool  &  Lond.  &  Gl.  Ins.  Co.,  153 
Mass.  143,  supports  this  conclusion.  It  is  not  easy,  if  in- 
deed it  be  possible,  to  place  upon  a  consistent  basis  many  of 
the  decisions  in  which  interest  has  been  allowed  or  dis- 
allowed. The  failure  to  pay,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  has  been 
the  result  of  the  company's  insolvency,  and  no  penalty  or 
damages  in  the  way  of  interest  ought  to  be  added  to  the  sums 
actually  due.    American  Casualty  Company's  Case,  82  Md. 


555. 


By  the  Act  of  1890,  the  taxes  are  due  and  payable  on 
July  1st  in  each  year,  and  it  is  provided  that  if  not  paid 
within  thirty  days  thereafter  the  companies  shall  pay  the  ad- 
ditional sum  of  five  per  cent,  as  a  penalty.  The  Legislature 
had  the  right  to  impose  the  penalty,  and  in  a  suit  to  recover 
such  taxes,  interest  is  chargeable  on  the  amount  of  the  tax 
from  August  1st  in  eacfy  year,  but  no  interest  is  chargeable 


S6  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

on  the  five  per  cent,  penalty.     Cumberland  &  Penna    R.  R. 
Co.  v.  State,  92  Md.  669. 

Invalidity  of  Statute  Exempting  From,  Taxation  a 
Wharf  Owned  by  a  Church.  The  Starr  Methodist  Church 
is  the  owner  of  a  wharf  devised  to  it  by  Wesley  Starr.  The 
church  paid  taxes  on  the  wharf  until  1904,  when  the  Legis- 
lature passed  an  Act  exempting  the  wharf  from  taxation. 
Notwithstanding  this  Act  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  retained 
the  property  in  its  assessment  books,  and  the  City  Collector 
advertised  it  for  sale  for  non-payment  of  taxes.  The  Cir- 
cuit Court  granted  a  permanent  injunction  against  the 
collection  of  the  tax  and  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  appealed  to 
this  Court.    *    *    * 

It  is  apparent  that  the  constitutionality  vel  non  of  the 
Act  of  1904  lies  at  the  root  of  this  contention.  In  support 
of  the  appellant's  position  reference  is  made  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Rights,  Art.  15,  which  provides  that  "every  per- 
son in  the  State,  or  person  holding  property  therein,  ought 
to  contribute  his  proportion  of  public  taxes,  according  to  his 
actual  worth  in  real  and  personal  property."  *  *  The  ex- 
emption in  this  case  does  not  apply  to  a  species  or  class  of 
property  but  to  one  piece  of  property  only,  leaving  all  other 
property  of  the  same  class  or  species  subject  to  taxation; 
and  for  no  other  reason  except  the  purely  arbitrary  one  of  a 

benefit  or  personal  favor  to  the  appellee  and  no  one  else. 
*    *   * 

It  is  simply  an  arbitrary  selection  of  the  property  of  the 
appellee,  and  the  conferring  of  a  favor  upon  it,  which  is 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  87 

denied  all  other  owners  of  similar  property.  If  this  can  be 
done  in  one  case  it  can  be  done  in  another,  and  it  would  then 
be  in  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  wilfully  discriminate 
between  its  citizens,  taxing  some  on  account  of  their  prop- 
erty, and  at  the  same  time  exempting  others  similarly  sit- 
uated, and  all  the  while  acting  under  no  reasonable,  just  or 
proper  rule  whatever,  but  solely  at  the  dictation  of  its  own 
caprice.  Even  an  unreasonable  classification  is  prohibited 
by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  *  *  We  think  (furthermore) 
that  the  Act  exempting  this  property  is  void  because  it  con- 
travenes Art.  3,  sec.  33,  of  the  State  Constitution  in  that  it 
relates  to  the  exemption  from  taxation  of  the  property  of  a 
religious  body,  and  this  is  a  subject  for  which  provision 
has  already  been  made  by  an  existing  general  law,  namely, 
Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  4.  Baltimore  v.  Starr  Church,  106  Md. 
281. 

Invalidity  of  Statute  Giving  to  County  Where  Corpora- 
tion was  Created  the  Tax  on  Shares  Owned  by  Non- 
Residents.  The  Act  of  1900,  Chap.  579,  provided  that  the 
incorporated  companies  of  Allegany  County,  whether  divi- 
dend paying  or  not,  shall  pay  the  State  and  County  taxes 
levied  upon  the  assessed  value  of  their  capital  stock,  held  by 
stockholders,  resident  or  non-resident  of  Allegany  County, 
but  the  holders  of  said  stock  shall  not  be  liable  upon  the 
stocks  held  by  them.  *  *  This  Act,  though  professing  to 
be  a  local  law  for  Allegany  County,  is  not  confined  in  its 
operations  to  the  limits  of  that  county.  It  operates  in  every 
county  in  the  State  in  which  there  is  resident  any  stock- 


8S  .        Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

holder  of  an  Allegany  County  corporation,  and  withdraws 
from  every  such  county  the  tax  upon  the  shares  of  stock 
held  by  residents  of  such  county,  which  under  the  existing 
general  provision  would  go  into  the  treasury  of  every  such 
county.  IJeld  to  be  invalid  because  it  is  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  Art.  3,  sec.  51,  which  provides  that  personal 
property  of  residents  shall  be  taxable  in  the  counties  in 
which  they  reside;  also  that  it  violates  sec.  33  of  said 
Article  which  provides  that  no  special  law  shall  be  passed  by 
the  General  Assembly  for  any  case  which  is  covered  by  a 
general  law.    Baltimore  v.  Allegany  County.  99  Md.  1. 

The  policy  as  to  personal  property  of  residents  of  the 
State  is  fixed  by  Art.  3  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  founded  on 
Art.  15  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights  which  requires  every 
person  in  the  State  to  contribute  his  proportion  of  public 
taxes  for  the  support  of  the  government  according  to  his 
actual  worth  in  real  and  personal  property.    Ibid. 

No  Maryland  case  has  been  cited,  and  we  know  of  none, 
either  deciding  or  intimating  that  shares  of  stock  held  by 
a  resident  of  the  State  can  be  taxed  elsewhere  than  at  the 
bona  fide  residence  of  the  owner.     Ibid. 

Itemizing  Stocks  of  Goods  not  Necessary.        It   is   not 

necessary  to  itemize  the  stock  in  trade  when  it  is  assessed. 
The  assessors  examine  the  stock,  the  goods  and  chattels, 
and  fix  their  value  for  taxation  just  as  they  do  the  furni- 
ture or  other  tangible  property  at  the  respective  residences 
of  the  appellees.    Hopkins  v.  Baker,  78  Md.  375. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  89 

Jurisdiction  of  Circuit  Courts — No  Power  to  Enjoin  State 
Officials  Beyond  Their  Circuits.  By  Sec.  178,  Chap.  120, 
and  by  Sec.  199,  Chap.  140,  of  the  Acts  of  Assembly  of  1896, 
provision  is  made  for  the  valuation  and  assessment  of  the 
rolling  stock  of  railway  companies  for  purposes  of  county 
and  municipal  taxation.  In  substance  these  sections  enact 
that  the  situs  of  such  rolling  stock  shall  be  taken  and  con- 
sidered to  be  in  the  assessment  district  in  which  the  com- 
pany's principal  place  of  business  is  located,  that  the  total 
valuation  shall  be  made  there  and  that  for  the  purposes 
of  county  and  municipal  taxation  this  total  valuation  shall 
be  divided  amongst  the  counties  and  the  City  of  Baltimore 
in  proportion  to  the  mileage  of  road-bed  located  in  the  coun- 
ties and  in  the  city  respectively.  Under  the  provisions  of 
these  Acts  the  rolling  stock  owned  by  the  Philadelphia,  Wil- 
mington &  Baltimore  Railroad  Company  was  valued  and 
assesssed  in  Baltimore  City;  the  total  valuation  thereof 
was  returned  by  the  Board  of  Control  and  Review  to  the 
State  Tax  Commissioner,  who  at  once  made  an  apportion- 
ment and  division  of  the  whole  between  the  city  and  the 
several  counties  of  this  State  through  which  the  railroad  is 
located,  and  ascertained  upon  the  mileage  basis,  that  the 
amount  chargeable  to  the  company  for  county  taxation  in 
Harford  County  was  $550,202.81,  which  amount  he  forth- 
with certified  to  the  County  Commissioners  of  that  county. 
From  this  apportionment  the  railroad  company  took  an 
appeal  to  the  State  Board.  Pending  that  appeal  the  County 
Commissioners  of  Harford  County  filed  in  the  Circuit  Court 
the  bill  of  complaint  to  be  found  in  the  record  now  before  us. 


90  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

This  bill  alleges  that  the  Comptroller  and  Treasurer  is  about 
to  interfere  with  said  apportionment  and  to  largely  reduce 
the  amount  thereof  under  pretence  of  reviewing  the  same 
as  a  board  of  appeal,  which  action,  it  is  charged,  is  without 
any  legal  authority  or  warrant  of  law.  Upon  this  bill  an 
ex  parte  order  was  passed,  directing  the  injunction  to  issue 
as  prayed.  The  defendants  demurred  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Court,  and  appealed  to  this  Court  from  the  order  grant- 
ing the  injunction.    *   *    * 

It  is  nowhere  averred  in  the  bill  that  either  of  the  de- 
fendants is  a  resident  of  Harford  County,  and  apart  from  all 
other  questions  in  the  case,  it  is  insisted  that,  in  the  absence 
of  any  appropriate  allegation  showing  that  the  defendants 
were,  or  that  one  of  them  was,  within  the  Court's  jurisdic- 
tion or  what  the  subject-matter  of  the  proceeding  was,  the 
Court  below  possessed  no  power  to  order  the  injunction  to 
be  issued.  Not  only  does  the  bill  fail  to  aver  that  the  de- 
fendants were  within  the  limits  of  the  Court's  jurisdiction, 
but  docket  entries  affirmatively  show  that  they  were  not, 
for  no  writ  was  directed  to  them  in  Harford  County,  but 
three  were  sent  to  other  circuits  in  the  State.  It  cannot  be 
contended  that  the  Circuit  Court  for  Harford  County  has 
authority  to  restrain  by  injunction  the  fiscal  officers  of  the 
State  who  do  not  reside  or  are  not  found  within  that  county, 
from  doing  some  act,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  county,  re- 
specting property  not  actually  situated  in  the  county ;  with- 
out conceding  to  every  other  Circuit  Court  in  the  State  a 
like  and  equal  power.  And  if  each  Circuit  Court  possess, 
under  these  conditions,  the  power  to  issue  an  injunction  to 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  91 

operate  beyond  the  territory  over  which  its  jurisdiction  ex- 
tends and  against  persons  not  amenable  to  its  ordinary  pro- 
cess and  to  inhibit  the  doing  of  an  act  not  attempted  or 
intended  to  be  done  within  the  county  over  which  the  Court's 
jurisdiction  does  reach,  then  that  power  is  not  to  be  found 
either  in  the  constitution  or  the  statutes  of  the  State.  In  the 
very  nature  of  things  no  such  jurisdiction  can  be  maintained. 
To  uphold  it  in  this  instance  would  be  to  admit  its  existence 
in  any  other  court  of  equity  in  Maryland,  and  results  cer- 
tainly might  be,  that  the  State's  officers  would  be  proceeded 
against,  not  where  they  reside  or  even  where  they  transact 
the  public  business,  but  wherever  a  plaintiff  who  sought  to 
subject  their  official  functions  to  a  court  of  equity,  might 
happen  to  live.  This  would  lead  to  endless  confusion,  if  it 
would  not  practically  cripple  the  efficiency  of  the  officers 
themselves;  and,  besides,  it  would  materially  amplify  the 
authority  conferred  by  statutes  upon  the  courts.  The  State 
Treasurer  and  the  State  Comptroller  were  directly  author- 
ized by  legislative  enactment  to  examine  into  the  apportion- 
ment made  by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  and  to  readjust 
the  same,  and  it  follows  that  the  Circuit  Court  of  Harford 
County  had  no  power  to  grant  the  injunction.  Graham  v. 
Harford  County,  87  Md.  323. 

Land  Under  Water.  The  title  to  land  under  the  water  is 
in  the  State,  and  hence  is  not  subject  to  taxation.  Western 
Md.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  106  Md.  567. 

Although  the  riparian  owner  has  the  right  to  reclaim  the 
land  to  make  improvements  into  the  water  in  front  of  his 


92  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

original  land,  yet  until  he  does  so  the  title  to  the  land  under 
the  water  is  in  the  State.    Ibid. 

Landed  Property.  The  term  "landed  property"  as  used 
in  the  annexation  Act  of  1888,  sec.  19,  shall  be  construed 
to  mean  real  estate,  whether  in  fee  simple  or  leasehold,  and 
whether  improved  or  unimproved.    Code  1911,  Art.  4,  sec.  4. 

"Levy" — Meaning  of .  The  word  "levy"  has  .different 
meanings  according  to  the  object  to  which  it  is  applied.  As 
applied  to  taxes  it  sometimes  means  to  raise  and  exact  by 
authority  of  government  or  to  determine  by  vote  the  amount 
of  tax  to  be  raised.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  towns  and  cities 
levy  taxes ;  in  other  cases  it  is  used  with  reference  to  the 
mere  ministerial  or  executive  act  of  entering  them  on  the 
tax  books  and  collecting  them.  5  IVords  and  Phrases,  p. 
4101  (quoted  in  Union  Trust  Co.  v.  State,  116  Md.  373.) 

The  act  of  the  Assembly  fixing  the  amount  to  be  imposed 
per  hundred  dollars  is  a  legislative  levy  of  the  tax,  but  that 
levy  is  only  completed  when  it  is  entered  on  the  books  of  the 
State  Comptroller.    Union  Trust  Co.  v.  State,  11G  Md.  373. 

Levy  of  Taxes  by  De  Facto  Officers  of  a  Town,  Though 
not  Sworn  in,  Valid  and  Binding.  This  is  a  bill  to  restrain 
the  appellee  from  enforcing  the  payment  of  taxes  levied  by 
them  on  the  property  of  the  appellant.  It  is  admitted,  that 
the  appellees  were  duly  elected  "the  Burgess  and  Commis- 
sioners of  Hancock," — that  they  qualified  as  such  by  taking 
the  oath  of  office  prescribed  by  the  charter,   and  entered  upon 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  93 

the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  office.  But  it  is  argued 
that  the  assessment  of  taxes  made  by  them  is  invalid,  be- 
cause they  have  not  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  required  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  State,  Art.  1,  sec.  (>.   *   *    * 

Admitting  for  the  purposes  of  this  case,  that  it  was  neces- 
sary for  them  to  take  the  oath  prescribed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, to  constitute  them  officers  de  jure,  it  is  conceded  they 
entered  upon  and  have  continued  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
their  office;  and  no  principle  is  better  settled  than  that  the 
acts  of  officers  de  facto  in  regard  to  public  matters  affecting 
the  public  interests,  are  to  be  regarded  as  valid  and  binding ; 
as  much  so  as  if  the  same  acts  had  been  performed  in  the 
same  manner,  by  an  officer  de  jure.  State  v.  Carroll,  38 
Conn.  449 ;  Cooley  on  Taxation,  189.    *    *    * 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  this  principle  applies  to 
the  acts  of  officers  entrusted  with  the  assessment  and  levy 
of  taxes,  but  as  taxes  are  levied  for  the  support  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  reasons  of  public  policy  on  which  the  principle 
is  founded,  apply  with  even  greater  force  in  regard  to  the 
acts  of  officers  whose  duty  it  is  to  levy  and  collect  such 
taxes.  And  such  is  the  general  current  of  decisions  in  this 
country.  1  Dillon  on  Mun.  Corp.,  276 ;  Blackwell  on  Tax 
Titles,  sec.  98,  and  cases  cited.  Being  officers  de  facto,  the 
public  and  official  acts  of  the  appellees  as  Burgess  and  Com- 
missioners of  Hancock  are  valid  and  binding.    *   *   * 

It  is  argued  that  no  assessment  was  in  fact  made  by  the 
appellees.  In  authorizing  the  town  authorities  to  assess  and 
levy  taxes,  the  charter  is  silent  as  to  the  mode  and  manner 


94  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

in  which  the  assessment  is  to  be  made.  Instead  of  ap- 
pointing persons  to  assess  the  property  of  persons  subject  to 
taxation,  the  appellees  adopted  the  assessment  made  for 
State  and  county  purposes,  making  such  changes  as  might 
be  necessary  arising  from  change  of  ownership,  etc.  It  is 
not  suggested  that  this  assessment  is  unfair,  unequal,  or  in 
any  manner  oppressive.  Notice  was  given  by  the  appellees 
of  the  assessment  thus  made  and  adopted  by  them,  and  an 
opportunity  afforded  to  have  the  same  corrected  and  re- 
adjusted should  such  be  necessary.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
charter  under  which  the  appellees  were  elected,  nor  is  there 
any  general  principle  of  law  which  forbids  them  from 
adopting  the  assessment  made  for  State  and  county  pur- 
poses, as  the  basis  of  the  levy  to  be  made  by  them,  Koontz  v. 
Hancock,  64  Md.  134. 

License  Taxes.  The  right  to  impose  a  license  fee  for 
conducting  a  particular  business  is  vested  in  the  Legislature 
by  the  Constitution.  The  license  fee  is  a  tax  on  a  business, 
not  on  property.     State  v.  Applegarth,  81  Md.  293. 

Liens  For  Taxes.  All  State  and  county  or  municipal 
taxes  shall  be  liens  on  the  real  estate  of  the  party  indebted 
from  the  time  the  same  are  levied.  Code  1911,  Art.  81, 
sec.  49. 

Taxes  are  not  a  lien  per  se;  hence  they  are  not  a  lien  on 
personal  property.  Parlett  v.  Dugan,  85  Md.  409;  Degner 
v.  Baltimore,  74  M'd.  146. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  95 

Limitations  Against  Taxes  Must  be  Pleaded.  Though  it 
is  provided  in  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  83,  that  taxes 
must  be  collected  within  four  years  from  the  time  they  are 
levied,  the  Statute  of  Limitation  will  not  avail  unless  it  is 
plead  by  the  person  from  whom  the  taxes  are  demanded. 
Unless  plead,  the  lien  on  the  property  still  exists,  and  the 
collector  may  proceed  to  sell  it.  Baden  v.  Perkins,  77  Md. 
465. 

List  of  Stockholders  Must  be  Furnished  by  Corpora- 
tions to  County  and  City  Authorities.  The  Fireman's  In- 
surance Company  of  Baltimore  refused  to  furnish  to  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  its  list  of  stockholders  as 
required  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Code.  The  company 
contended  that  its  stock  ought  to  be  assessed  at  its  par  value, 
as  fixed  by  its  charter,  and  that  the  tax,  since  the  Act  of 
1861-1862,  Chap.  251,  was  payable  to  the  city  on  the  entire 
capital  and  was  properly  payable  by  the  company  and  not 
by  the  respective  shareholders.  Upon  application  of  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court  the  Superior  Court  of  Baltimore  City 
issued  a  writ  of  mandamus  ordering  the  company  to  furnish 
a  list  of  its  stockholders.    *    *   *   * 

We  concur  in  the  opinion  of  the  Superior  Court  in  this 
case,  and  think  the  mandamus  was  properly  ordered.  The 
appellant  is  a  joint  stock  corporation  in  the  City  of  Balti- 
more, subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  97th  Section,  81st 
Article,  of  the  Code;  and  was  bound,  by  the  express  terms 
of  that  section  to  furnish  to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  the 
list  of  stockholders  with  their  places  of  residence,  and  the 


90  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

amount  of  stock  held  by  each,  and  having  failed  or  refused 
to  do  so,  the  appropriate  remedy  to  enforce  a  compliance  with 
the  obligation  so  imposed,  was  by  the  writ  of  mandamus. 
The  position  of  the  appellant  that  the  corporation,  as  an 
entity,  and  not  the  shareholders,  is  the  owner  of  its  capital 
stock  is  more  ingenious  than  sound.  The  purpose  of  the  law 
is  that  every  owner  of  property,  whether  it  be  shares  of 
stock  or  other  property,  shall  pay  taxes  thereon  at  its  actual 
cash  value.  The  whole  Court  agree  in  the  opinion  that  the 
shares  of  stock  are  liable  to  be  assessed  at  their  cash  value 
at  the  time  of  the  assessment.  Fireman's  Insurance  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  23  Md.  309. 

The  necessity  of  furnishing  a  list  might  be  obviated  by 
the  corporation  agreeing  with  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  to  pay 
an  ascertained  amount  of  money  as  a  tax  upon  the  stock 
liable  to  city  taxation,  in  lieu  of  an  assessment  upon  the  in- 
dividual shares,  thus  saving  the  city  the  necessity  of  resort- 
ing to  the  individual  stockholders.  The  Act  of  1864,  Chap. 
391,  in  express  words,  authorizes  such  agreements  to  be 
made  by  joint  stock  corporations.    Ibid. 

Local    Assessment    of    Corporate    Stocks    and   Bonds. 

The  stock  of  the  American  Coal  Company,  with  its  princi- 
pal office  in  Allegany  County,  is  divided  into  58,800  shares, 
one  hundred  of  which  is  owned  in  Allegany  County  and  the 
remainder  by  persons  in  other  states.  The  Company  owned 
valuable  real  estate  in  Allegany  County  and  in  New  Jersey, 
and  the  State  Tax  Commissioner,  as  required  by  law,  de- 


Maryland  Tax  Digkst.  1)7 

ducted  the  value  of  this  real  estate  from  the  total  value  of 
the  whole  number  of  shares  of  capital  stock,  thus  determin- 
ing the  value  of  each  share  of  stock  and  of  the  whole  num- 
ber of  shares.  The  real  estate  owned  in  New  Jersey  con- 
tributed very  largely  to  the  value  of  the  stock  as  ascer- 
tained by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner.  The  Company  paid 
the  taxes  for  1880  on  its  real  estate  owned  in  Allegany 
County,  but  refused  to  pay  the  tax  bill  for  the  whole  num- 
ber of  shares  as  levied  by  the  County  Commissioners,  and 
suit  was  brought  for  recovery  of  these  taxes.  The  appel- 
lants contended  that  the  Company  should  not  have  been 
charged  with  the  whole  number  of  shares,  and  particularly 
that  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  had  no  authority  to  in- 
clude the  New  Jersey  real  estate  in  his  valuation.  *  *  *  * 

It  was  clearly  the  purpose  of  the  Code,  Art.  81, 
sec.  151,  to  give  to  the  counties  and  to  Baltimore  City  the 
power  to  assess  all  the  property  of  a  corporation  that  has 
either  a  constructive  or  actual  situs  within  their  bounds^ 
In  Baltimore  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  57  Md.  31,  it  was  declared  to  be 
the  purpose  of  the  statute  that  the  State  Tax  Commissioner 
should  certify  as  to  the  value  and  number  of  shares  owned 
by  both  residents  and  non-residents.  There  was  no  error  on 
the  part  of  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  in  including  the 
New  Jersey  real  estate  in  his  valuation.    *  *  * 

Under  the  statute  the  taxes  were  properly  levied  upon  the 
property  of  the  corporation  without  reference  to  the  as- 
sessment and  levy  upon  the  shares  of  the  individual  share 


98  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

owners,  the  corporation  being  required  to  pay  the  taxes  on 
the  shares,  and  to  charge  the  same  to  the  account  of  the 
respective  share  owners.  This  duty  of  the  corporation  may 
be  enforced  by  law.  American  Coal  Co.  v.  Allegany  County, 
59  Md.  192-197. 

Machinery  of  Corporations  Not  Assessable  as  Real 
Estate*  The  real  estate  owned  by  a  corporation  is  assessed 
by  the  tax  authorities  of  the  county  in  which  it  is  located. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  County  Commissioners  to  send  a  copy 
of  the  assessment  to  the  State  Tax  Commissioner.  Under 
the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  141,  the  value  of  all  the  shares  of  a 
corporation,  as  derived  from  all  of  its  property,  is  fixed  by 
the  State  Tax  Commissioner  and  from  this  total  he  extracts 
the  assessment  so  placed  on  its  real  estate.  The  residuum 
constitutes  the  valuation  of  the  shares  subject  to  taxation  in 
the  municipality  where  the  owners  reside.  The  pergonal 
property  of  a  corporation  is  not  separately  assessed.  Under 
the  provision  thus  set  forth  the  State  Tax  Commissioner 
must  value  the  machinery  of  a  manufacturing  corporation 
for  taxation  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  aggregate  value  of 
the  shares  of  stock  and  the  County  Commissioners  cannot 
value  the  machinery  as  a  part  of  the  real  estate.  When 
County  Commissioners  thus  improperly  assess  machinery 
as  a  part  of  the  real  estate  of  a  corporation  a  writ  of 
mandamus  is  the  proper  remedy  for  aggrieved  taxpayers. 
Anne  Arundel  County  v.  Sugar  Refining  Company,  99  Md. 
481. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  99 

Market  Value  of  Shares  of  Stock  and  the  Criterion  for 
Their  Assessment.  The  Tax  Commissioner  in  assessing  the 
capital  stock  of  the  Montgomery  County  National  Bank 
proposes  to  disregard  the  earning  capacity  of  said  shares  of 
stock  of  more  than  17^2  per  cent,  and  the  reported  sales 
of  said  shares  at  $250  to  $300  per  share,  and  take  the  book 
value  of  $218,129.57  and  arbitrarily  deduct  one-fourth  of 
said  book  value,  or  $54,532.39,  thus  reducing  the  gross  value 
per  share  to  $163.59.  *  *  *  It  is  to  be  observed  that  sec. 
159  of  Art.  81  of  the  Code,  which  directs  the  Commissioner 
to  make  the  assessment,  contains  no  specific  directions  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  value  of  the  shares  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained. *  *  *  But  as  sec.  15  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  requires 
taxation  to  be  according  to  the  actual  worth  of  the  property 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  to  pursue  a  method  which 
results  in  the  ascertainment  of  the  actual  value  of  the  shares 
assessed  by  him.  The  value  of  an  article  is  ordinarily  what 
it  will  bring  at  a  fair  sale  in  the  market.  It  may  be  safely 
said  as  a  general  rule  that  the  market  price  of  the  shares  of 
stock  of  the  character  referred  to  in  sec.  159  is  not  only  a 
fair  index  of  their  value  but  is  the  best  one  obtainable. 
That  is  certainly  true  of  stocks  which  are  currently  bought, 
sold  and  quoted  on  the  stock  exchanges  and  other  centres 
of  trade  in  securities.  Schley  v.  Montgomery  County,  106 
Md.  410. 

The  method,  pursued  by  the  Tax  Commissioner,  of  ascer- 
taining what  is  commonly  known  as  the  book  value  of  bank 
and  trust  company  shares  by  adding  the  capital  stock,  sur- 
plus and  undivided  profits  of  the  corporation  and  dividing 


100  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  total  thus  obtained  by  the  number  of  shares  into  which 
its  capital  is  divided  is  neither  a  true  guide  to  the  value  of 
the  shares  of  a  particular  corporation  nor  one  that  operates 
equally  when  applied  to  the  shares  of  a  number  of  different 
corporations.     Ibid. 

The  Commissioner  in  making  his  assessments  should 
have  especial  regard  to  the  market  price  of  those  shares. 
Ibid. 

Mode  of  Assessment    Directed  by  Municipal  Charter. 

The  Charter  of  Salisbury  exempted  private  securities  and 
judgments  from  municipal  taxation.  In  189(>  the  Legislature 
passed  a  general  assessment  law  which  provided  a  plan  for 
the  levying  of  county  and  municipal  taxes.  Held  that  this 
act  did  not  repeal  the  provisions  of  the  Salisbury  charter 
with  reference  to  the  method  of  assessment,  nor  the  exemp- 
tion from  taxation  of  private  securities  and  judgments. 
Salisbury  v.  lackson,  89  Md.  518. 

Mortgage  Bonds.  Under  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sees.  2, 
94  and  214,  mortgage  bonds  secured  by  property  in  this 
State  and  owned  by  residents  of  Maryland,  are  taxable  to 
the  owners  thereof  and  not  to  the  corporation  itself.  Con- 
solidated Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  105  "M'd.  50;  Consolidated 
Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  101  Md.  555. 

Mortgaged  Property  Assessable  to  the  Mortgagor.  Real 
estate  should,  in  all  circumstances,  be  assessed  at  its  actual 
worth,  and  mortgaged  property  should  be  assessed  to  the 


1>  >     »        >       )  ») 


.       >        11.1. >1,      ,,      , 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  101 

mortgagor,  without  reference  to  mortgage  liens.  This  ques- 
tion has  been  settled  in  this  State  ever  since  the  decision 
of  the  Tax  Cases,  12  G.  &  J.  146,  in  1841.  Allen  v.  Harford 
County,  74  Md.  294. 

Mortgages  to  Secure  Corporation  Bonds.  Mortgages 
by  a  railroad  company  executed  in  favor  of  a  trustee  to 
secure  bonds  sold  to  investors  are  not  taxable  under  the 
Act  of  1896,  Chap.  120.  Musgrove  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co., 
Ill  Md.  629. 

Municipal  Taxation  of  Suburban  Land.      The   Act   of 

1884,  Chap.  58,  provided  a  new  system  of  government  for 
Hagerstown,  enlarging  the  boundaries  of  the  city  so  as  to 
include  what  was  known  as  "Valentine's  Addition."  By  the 
terms  of  the  Act,  the  annexed  land  was  not  to  become  sub- 
ject to  municipal  taxes  until  streets  had  been  opened  and 
graded  through  it,  and  then  could  only  be  assessed  for  a 
distance  of  240  feet  from  the  line  of  a  street.  "Valentine's 
Addition"  had  been  mapped  out  in  blocks,  with  designated 
streets,  and  the  map  recorded.  But  none  of  the  streets  had 
been  accepted  by  the  municipality,  and  the  adoption  of  the 
new  charter  did  not  operate  as  an  acceptance.  The  nearest 
city  street  to  this  tract  of  land  is  Mechanic  street,  and  the 
facts  make  it  clear  that  the  property  proposed  to  be  taxed 
is  not  within  240  feet  of  that  thoroughfare,  nor  within  that 
distance  of  any  turnpike  or  public  road.  The  acceptance 
of  the  new  charter  by  the  City  of  Hagerstown  did  not 
operate  as  an  acceptance  of  the  streets  that  had  been  laid 


*     * 


102  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

out  in  this  added  territory.  Although  the  dedication  of  these 
streets  might  have  been  complete,  as  has  been  urged  by  the 
appellee,  but  to  make  them  public  streets  within  the  meaning 
of  the  charter  there  must  be  an  acceptance  of  the  dedication 
according  to  law.     Valentine  v.  Hagerstown,  86  Md.  486. 

Municipalities  Entitled  to  a  Share  of  State  Tax  on 
Securities.  A  municipal  corporation  within  a  county  is 
entitled  to  a  share  of  the  thirty  (now  fifteen)  cents  levied 
on  owners  of  bonds  residing  in  such  city,  and  as  the  Legisla- 
ture failed  to  name  the  proportions  we  must  assume  that 
it  was  intended  to  be  equally  divided  between  the  city  and 
county.    Frederick  County  v.  Frederick  City,  88  Md.  662. 

Municipality  Has  no  Authority  to  Enter  Into  a  Contract 
to  Exempt  a  Manufacturer  for  Fifty  Years.  In  1889  a 
contract  was  made  between  the  City  of  Havre  de  Grace 
and  John  Faust  &  Son,  the  latter  of  whom  agreed  to  move 
their  business  of  manufacturing  shoes  to  Havre  de  Grace 
and  maintain  in  that  place  a  shoe  factory  of  certain  dimen- 
sions, within  a  prescribed  time  in  consideration  of  the  gift  to 
them  of  certain  land  and  money  toward  the  erection  of 
the  factory,  and  the  exemption  of  the  factory  when  erected 
with  its  stock,  plant  and  buildings,  from  city  taxation  for 
fifty  years.  Faust  &  Son  agreed  to  continuously  operate  the 
factory  to  its  full  capacity,  and  also  agreed  to  give  a  bond 
of  $25,000  to  guarantee  performance  of  its  contract,  in 
consideration  thereof  the  municipality  agreeing  to  pay  to 
Faust  &  Son,  the  sum  of  $25,000,  to  be  used  in  the  construc- 
tion of  the  building,  to  convey  a  designated  lot  of  ground 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  103 

for  the  factory  building,  and  to  exempt  the  factory  from 
taxation  for  fifty  years.  The  factory  was  erected  and  con- 
tinuously operated  for  ten  years,  then  the  shoe  company 
made  an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  its  creditors,  in  1896, 
to  A.  P.  McCombs  and  C.  H.  Faust,  who  filed  a  bill  in  the 
Circuit  Court  for  Harford  County  for  their  administration 
of  the  trust  under  its  supervision.  The  shoe  factory  was 
subsequently  sold  to  an  individual,  who  in  turn  sold  it  to  the 
appellant  corporation.  The  appellant  alleged  that  the  City 
of  Havre  de  Grace  had  levied  taxes  upon  the  shoe  factory 
and  was  about  to  sell  it  for  their  non-payment  and  prayed 
for  an  injunction,  which  was  granted.  The  city  admitted  that 
it  has  attempted  to  make  the  alleged  contract  with  Faust  & 
Son,  but  denying  its  power  to  do  so,  also  denying  that  the 
contract  had  been  complied  with  by  them  or  their  assigns 
in  that  the  shoe  factory  had  not  been  continuously  operated 
to  its  full  capacity  for  ten  years.  The  Circuit  Court  dis- 
solved the  preliminary  injunction  and  dismissed  the  bill.  *  *  * 

The  Circuit  Court  in  our  opinion  correctly  disposed  of  the 
case,  as  the  evidence  in  the  record  does  not  show  the  appel- 
lant to  be  entitled  to  the  relief  prayed  for  in  the  bill.  At  the 
time  of  making  the  contract  in  1889,  the  only  authority  pos- 
sessed by  the  city  to  exempt  property  from  taxation  was 
that  conferred  upon  it  by  the  local  Act  of  1880,  which 
authorized  it  to  abate  by  general  ordinance  any  or  all  taxes 
levied  by  its  authority  for  corporate  uses  upon  machinery, 
etc.,  owned  by  any  individual  or  corporation  in  the  city  and 
"actually  employed  and  used  in  the  business  of  manufactur- 
ing in  said  city"  or  upon  the  raw  material  used,  or  the 


104  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

produce  manufactured  by  such  individuals  or  corporations. 
That  Act  evidently  conferred  no  power  upon  the  city  to 
make  the  Faust  contract.  Power  Co.  v.  Havre  de  Grace, 
102  Md.  37.  j 

It  was  therefore  beyond  the  power  of  the  city  by  any 
form  of  ratification  to  give  validity  to  the  exemption,  which 
was  attempted  to  be  made  by  the  present  contract,  of  the 
Faust  factory  and  plant  from  taxation  for  fifty  years  on  con- 
dition that  it  was  to  be  kept  in  operation  for  ten  years.  Even 
if  we  construe  the  contract  as  having  been  intended  to 
exempt  the  factory  and  plant  from  taxation  only  so  long  as 
it  should  be  actually  used  and  operated  as  a  shoe  factory,  the 
record  shows  that  Faust  &  Son  failed  to  perform  their  part 
of  the  contract  in  several  material  particulars.     Ibid, 

New  Improvements  Taxable  When  Substantially  Com- 
pleted. The  appellants,  owners  of  the  premises  at  the 
northwest  corner  of  Baltimore  and  Hanover  streets,  filed  a 
petition  in  the  City  Court,  praying  that  assessments  of  the 
improvements  made  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  for  the  year 
1907  be  rescinded.  Petitioners  alleged  that  said  assessment 
($180,000)  was  illegal  because  the  improvements  were  not 
completed  on  October  1,  190(>,  in  many  important  respects, 
especially  as  to  plastering  and  inside  woodwork.  They  re- 
lied on  Ordinance  No.  170  by  which  the  "Appeal  Tax  Court 
is  authorized  and  directed  to  have  assessed  for  taxable 
purposes  all  new  improvements  finished  on  or  before  the 
first  day  of  October  of  every  year,  the  said  improvements 
to  be  construed  as  finished,  when  plastering  and  inside  wood- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  105 

work  are  completed."  The  City  Court  found  that  the  im- 
provements "were  so  far  completed  on  the  first  day  of  Octo- 
ber, 1906,  as  to  be  liable  to  assessment,"  and  that  the  assess- 
ment for  1907  was  legal,  but  that  the  amount  was  erroneous, 
which  was  reduced  to  $150,000.  This  Court  is  not  authorized 
to  review  a  question  of  fact  and  as  the  record  does  not 
present  any  question  of  law  to  be  considered,  the  appeal 
must  be  dismissed.  As  the  question  argued  is  one  of  im- 
portance, and  one  in  which  the  public  is  concerned,  we  will 
briefly  state  our  conclusion  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  We 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Ordinance  must  be  construed 
to  mean  that  new  improvements  are  to  be  assessed  when  the 
plastering  and  woodwork  are  substantially  completed  by 
October  1st,  and  this  shows  that  they  were  in  this  instance. 
There  was  a  formal  opening  of  the  building  on  November 
1st,  1906,  two  months  before  the  period  began  for  which 
the  taxes  were  to  be  paid,  and  the  work  to  be  done  after 
October  1st  was  not  of  a  character  to  justify  us  in  holding 
that  it  was  within  the  meaning  of  the  Ordinance.  Ham- 
burger v.  Baltimore,  106  Md.  479. 

Newly  Discovered  Property.  Under  Code,  Art.  81, 
sec.  12,  property  liable  to  taxation  may  be  assessed  for 
the  current  year  after  the  prescribed  time  for  making  the 
annual  levy.  B.  C.  &  A.  Ryr  Co.  v.  Wicomico  County,  93 
Md.  123. 

No  Assessment  Void.  No  assessment  can  be  declared 
void,  but  the  City  Court  must  assess  the  property  in  ques- 
tion anew.    Baltimore  v.  Hurlock,  113  Md.  676. 


106  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Non-Resident  Guardian  and  Ward.  When  a  guardian 
is  appointed  in  this  State  the  property  of  the  ward  held  by 
him  is  subject  to  taxation  under  the  Code,  Art.  81, 
sec.  9,  in  the  county  where  he  was  appointed,  although 
both  guardian  and  ward  reside  in  another  county.  Baldwin 
v.  Washington  County,  85  Md.  145. 

Northern  Central  R.  R.  Rolling  Stock  Assessable  in 
Baltimore.  Assuming  the  home  office  of  the  appellee  to 
be  in  Baltimore,  it  follows  that  its  rolling  stock  must  be 
assessed  in  that  city.  The  right  to  tax  the  property  of  the 
appellee  is  no  longer  an  open  question.  The  rolling  stock 
of  a  railroad  company  is  not  real  estate  under  the  General 
Assessment  Act;  whether  it  be  considered  as  movable  fix- 
tures, or  as  personal  property  it  was,  under  the  terms  of  that 
Act,  liable  to  assessment  at  the  home  office,  or  principal  place 
of  business  of  the  company.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  N.  C.  R. 
R.  Co.  50  Md.  419. 

Notice  and  an  Opportunity  to  be  Heard  Essential  to 
Every  Assessment.  Baltimore  City  Charter,  Sec.  150, 
provides  that  before  increasing  the  assessment  of  any  prop- 
erty heretofore  assessed,  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall  notify 
the  owner  by  written  or  printed  summons  containing  such 
interrogatories  in  regard  to  the  property  as  they  may  require 
to  be  answered  under  oath,  and  fix  a  day  to  answer  such 
interrogatories  and  to  present  such  proof  as  the  owners 
may  desire.  This  section  contemplates  a  hearing  before 
action  is  taken  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  when  its  mind  is 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  107 

open  and  unbiased,  and  not  after,  when  an  ex  parte 
conclusion  has  been  reached,  and  the  natural  and  inevitable 
disposition  to  sustain  the  position  taken  has  been  aroused. 
Baltimore  v.  Poole,  97  Md.  70. 

In  the  assessment  of  state  corporation  shares  notice 
of  the  assessment  given  to  the  corporation  itself  was  suffi- 
cient, and  a  notice  to  each  non-resident  stockholders  is  un- 
necessary because  in  the  taxation  of  its  shares  the  corpora- 
tion is  treated  by  the  statute  as  representing  the  stockholders, 
and  the  tax  in  question  was  not  invalid  under  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution  as  a  taking  of  plain- 
tiff's property  without  due  process  of  law.  Corry  v.  Balti- 
more, 96  Md.  310. 

Notice  and  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  are  essential  to  the 
validity  of  every  assessment  for  taxation.  That  it  is  a  rule 
founded  upon  the  first  principles  of  natural  justice,  older 
than  written  constitutions,  that  a  citizen  shall  not  be  de- 
prived of  his  life,  liberty  or  property  without  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard  in  defense  of  his  rights,  and  that  this 
fundamental  principle  is  applicable  in  its  full  force  to  the 
method  by  which  each  individual's  property  is  valued  to 
fix  the  basis  of  his  liability  for  the  payment  of  taxes.  Mon- 
ticello  Distilling  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  90  Md.  416. 

Under  the  Act  of  1908,  Chap.  167,  relating  to  the  classi- 
fication and  assessment  of  property  in  Baltimore,  "due 
notice"  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  notice  should  be  per- 


108  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

sonally  served  in  the  process  of  taxation,  and  that  the  notices 
which  in  this  case  was  left  at  each  house  which  was  the 
subject  of  taxation  constituted  due  notice.  Wannenwetch  v. 
Baltimore,  1*5  %JVTd.  453. 

The  notice  in  this  case  was  addressed  to  the  plaintiff 
personally  and  not  as  trustee,  yet  he  was  thereby  informed 
of  the  increase  proposed  to  be  made  in  the  assessment,  and, 
since  he  had  a  complete  remedy  by  appeal  to  the  City  Court, 
he  is  not  entitled  to  apply  to  a  court  of  equity.  Baltimore 
v.  Gittings,  113  Md.  119. 

The  amount  of  the  tax  in  this  case,  it  will  be  seen,  is  fixed 
by  the  Act  itself,  and  it  is  well  settled  that  where  the  Legis- 
lature fixes  the  amount  of  the  tax,  no  notice  is  necessary, 
and  in  the  absence  of  clear  evidence  that  the  tax  is  arbitrary 
or  oppressive,  the. Legislature's  decision  is  conclusive  on  the 
Courts.  Leser  v.  Wagner,  120  Md.  (iTT  ;  Hyattsville  v. 
Smith,  106  Md.  318;  Faust  v.  Building  Association,  84  Md. 
18G. 

Before  increasing  the  assessment  of  any  property  which 
has  been  heretofore  assessed,  or  adding  any  new  property 
not  valued  and  returned  to  them  by  the  proper  assessor,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  as  the  case  may 
be,  to  notify  the  owner  of  such  property  by  written  or  printed 
summons,  containing  such  interrogatories  in  regard  to  the 
property  as  they  may  require  to  be  answered  on  oath,  and  ap- 
pointing a  certain  day  for  such  owner  to  answer  such  interro- 
gatories, either  orally  or  in  writing,  and  to  make  such  state- 
ment, or  present  such  proof  as  he  may  desire  in  the  premises ; 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  109 

and  such  notice  shall  be  served  on  such  owner  or  left  at  his 
place  of  abode  at  least  five  days  (now  ten  days  by  Act  of 
1914)  before  the  day  of  hearing  appointed  in  such  summons. 
Baltimore  City  Charter,  sec.  150. 

Whenever  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  shall 
purpose  to  alter  or  change  any  assessment  or  make  any  new 
assessment  they  shall,  before  such  assessment  is  made,  give 
at  least  five  days  (now  ten  days  by  Act  of  1914)  notice 
thereof  in  writing  served  upon  the  owner  of  the  property  to 
be  assessed  or  reassessed,  and  if  any  owner  be  not  found 
within  the  limits  of  said  City,  then  to  the  person  in  posses- 
sion of  the  property  to  be  assessed  or  in  whose  custody  the 
same  may  be,  or  if  it  be  land,  and  no  one  be  in  the  apparent 
occupancy  thereof,  then  by  a  notice  posted  on  said  land. 
Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  203,  as  amended  by  Act  of  1914, 
identical  with  provision  in  sec.  164a  Baltimore  City  Charter. 

Whenever  the  County  Commissioners  shall  purpose  to 
alter  or  change  any  assessment,  or  make  any  new  assess- 
ments, they  shall,  before  said  assessment  is  made,  give  five 
days  (now  ten  days  by  Act  of  1914)  notice  thereof  in  writing 
to  the  owner  of  the  property  to  be  assessed,  and  if  such 
owner  be  not  found  within  the  limits  of  their  county,  then  to 
the  person  in  possession  of  the  property  to  be  assessed,  or  in 
whose  custody  the  same  may  be,  or  if  it  be  land  and  no  one 
be  in  the  apparant  occupancy  thereof,  then  by  a  notice  posted 
on  said  land.     Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  204. 

Obligations  of  Other  States  Taxable  in  Maryland — The 
Exemption  is  Limited  to  the  State  Granting  it.       This  is 


110  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

an  appeal  from  a  pro  forma  order  of  the  Baltimore  City 
Court  whereby  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  was  directed  to  strike 
from  the  list  of  property  assessed  to  the  appellees,  as  not  sub- 
ject to  taxation,  certain  bonds  and  certificates  of  indebted- 
ness of  the  states  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and 
of  the  cities  of  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  of  the  County 
of  New  York,  due  to  the  appellee,  a  resident  of  this  State. 
The  question  raised  is  whether  the  public  debt  of  one  state, 
exempted  by  that  state,  owned  by  the  resident  of  another, 
is  taxable  by  the  state  in  which  the  owner  resides.  The  im- 
portance of  the  question,  in  a  financial  point  of  view,  can 
scarcely  be  magnified.  The  language  of  our  organic  law 
is  "that  every  person  in  the  State  or  holding  property  there- 
in ought  to  contribute  his  proportion  of  public  taxes  for  the 
support  of  the  government,  according  to  his  actual  worth  in 
real  and  personal  property"  (Bill  of  Rights).  No  reference 
is  made  to  the  situs  of  the  property  as  the  ground  of  obliga- 
tion; the  elements  of  the  duty  are,  the  ability  of  the  citi- 
zen to  pay,  and  the  protection  he  enjoys  under  the  govern- 
ment. *  *  *  That  no  state  can  pass  any  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contract  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  constitutional 
law.  The  inquiry  is,  does  this  maxim  prohibit  the  imposi- 
tion of  taxes  by  a  state  upon  the  property  of  its  citizens 
or  residents  invested  in  the  stocks  of  another  state,  exempted 
by  the  law  of  that  state  from  taxation?  In  the  case  of 
Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  445,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  declined  determining  the  question  now 
presented  because  it  was  not  necessarily  involved  in  that 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  Ill 

case.    Here  the  question  arises  in  limine,  and  must  be  dis- 
posed of.  *   *  * 

The  exercise  of  the  power  to  tax  property,  or  rights  rest- 
ing in  such  contracts,  does  not  in  any  sense  impair  the  con- 
tract, but  rather  enforces  it,  by  asserting  rights  incident  and 
and  collateral  to  them.  The  contract  is,  by  its  terms,  limited 
to  the  state  granting  it,  as  its  authority  is  only  co-extensive 
with  its  territory,  and  cannot  operate  on  the  rights  and 
powers  of  other  states.  The  situs  of  the  stock  being  that  of 
the  domicile  of  its  holder,  his  property,  or  "jus  disponendi" 
according  to  the  law  of  nations,  is  subject  to  the  sovereign 
powers  of  the  state  wherein  he  resides.  Whether  this  power 
should  be  exercised  or  not  is  a  legislative,  not  a  judicial 
question.  The  owner  being  bound  to  contribute  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  government  according  to  his  worth  in  property, 
cannot  complain,  if  he  is  fairly  taxed,  according  to  his  ability, 
by  the  Legislature  of  his  domicile.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v. 
Patterson,  50  Md.   373. 

The  prejudicial  consequences  of  allowing  citizens  of  this 
State  the  benefit  of  exemptions  granted  by  other  states  are 
too  obvious  to  need  illustration.  The  tendency  of  capital 
to  seek  investment  where  it  will  be  free  from  all  contribu- 
tion to  public  burdens  is  exemplified  by  instances  too  numer- 
ous to  be  mentioned.    Ibid. 

October  "Final  and  Conclusive"  Clause.  No  property, 
other  than  corporate  property,  not  subject  to  taxation  on 
October  first  in  each  year,  can  enter  into  the  taxable  basis 
for  the  ensuing  fiscal  year,  though  it  become  subject  to  taxa- 


112  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

tion  on  the  next  day.  The  point  of  time,  and  the  rule  of  law, 
which  control,  are  alike  arbitrary,  and  necessarily  so,  but 
are  none  the  less  final  and  conclusive,  without  authority  and 
without  argument.  The  power,  given  in  the  proviso  of  sec. 
171  (of  the  Baltimore  City  Charter)  to  assess  after  Octo- 
ber first  "property  escaped  or  omitted"  in  the  regular  course 
of  valuation,  is  confined  to  property  which  was  subject  to 
taxation  on  October  first.  Baltimore  v.  Jenkins,  96  Md. 
195. 

To  avoid  confusion  and  uncertainty  some  definite  period 
had  to  be  adopted  as  the  point  of  time,  in  each  year,  when 
the  valuation  fixed  upon  the  property  actually  assessed  and 
charged  upon  the  books  to  each  individual,  would  no  longer 
be  open  to  question,  but  would  be  conclusively  ascertained 
and  made  binding,  upon  both  the  city  and  the  taxpayer 
alike.    Hopkins  v.  Van  IVyck,  80  Md.  15. 

Improvements  upon  the  real  estate  of  a  corporation  in 
Baltimore  City  completed  prior  to  January  1st,  are  liable 
to  taxation  for  the  ensuing  year,  although  not  assessed  to 
the  corporation  on  October  1st,  in  the  preceding  year,  that 
date  being  fixed  by  law  for  the  assessment  to  individuals  of 
property  for  taxation  in  said  city.  Skinner  Dry  Dock  Co. 
v.  Baltimore,  96  "M'd.  32. 

Property  liable  to  taxation  but  which  was  omitted  from 
the  assessment  books  at  the  time  fixed  by  law  for  making 
the  tax  levy  may  be  subsequently  assessed  for  taxation  under 
sec.  171  of  the  Baltimore  City  Charter.     Ibid. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  113 

Omitted  Property — When  it  May  be  Subsequently  As- 
sessed— Power  to  Assess  for  Previous  Years.  The  local 
law  of  Wicomico  County  provides  that  the  Clerk  of  the 
County  Commissioners  shall  annually,  before  the  first  of 
August,  deliver  a  copy  of  the  assessment  of  his  collection 
district  to  the  Collector,  but  this  provision  does  not  prevent 
the  County  Commissioners  from  subsequently  assessing 
property  omitted  from  the  levy.  B.  C.  &  A.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Wicomico  County,  93  Md.  113. 

Property  which  has  not  been  put  on  the  assessment  books 
at  the  time  the  annual  levy  is  made  as  required  by  law, 
may  be  assessed  at  any  subsequent  time  in  the  current  year 
when  the  law  does  not  prohibit  the  adding  of  escaped  prop- 
erty by  the  assessors.    Ibid. 

County  Commissioners  are  required  by  the  Code,  Art. 
23,  sec.  6,  to  make  the  levy  of  taxes  annually  before 
the  first  of  July.  Sec.  83  of  the  same  Article  provides  that 
taxes  shall  be  collected  within  four  years  after  being  levied. 
The  County  Commissioners  assessed  certain  property  of  the 
defendant  for  the  years  1896,  1897,  1898  and  1899.  This 
property,  though  taxable,  had  escaped  taxation  or  been 
omitted  from  the  levy  previous  to  1899.  The  Company  re- 
fused to  pay  the  taxes  and  the  County  Commissioners  in- 
stituted suit  for  their  recovery.  The  levy  made  by  the  Com- 
missioners for  1896,  1897  and  1898  was  not  made  in  pur- 
suance of  any  power  conferred  upon  them  by  the  statute, 
their  authority  to  make  a  levy  being  confined  to  the  current 
vear  of  1899,  and  the  defendants  are  not  obligated  to  pay 


114:  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  taxes.  Ibid.  Note. — The  power  given  to  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  is  much  broader.  Sec.  171 
of  the  Charter  authorizes  the  Court  to  make  assessments 
on  omitted  or  escaped  property  for  "current  taxes  and  back- 
taxes,  not  exceeding  four  years  whenever  the  same  may  be 
discovered."    See  Act  of  1914,  Chap.  532.     (Appendix.) 

In  the  case  of  escaped  or  omitted  property  the  penalty 
herein  provided  (an  amount  equal  to  one  per  centum  per 
annum  of  the  gross  amount  of  each  bill,  accounting  from  the 
time  the  taxes  became  in  arrear)  and  also  interest  shall  be 
added  to  the  tax  bills  for  the  current  and  back  years  in  the 
same  manner  as  if  such  property  had  not  escaped  or  been 
omitted.  Act  of  1914,  Chap.  532,  amending  the  Baltimore 
City  Charter. 

Orphans'  Courts  Have  no  Power  to  Pass  on  Validity 
of  Taxes.  Orphans'  Courts  have  no  power  to  pass  upon 
the  validity  of  claims  for  taxes,  as  the  exercise  of  such  a 
supervision  of  claims  would  constitute  the  Orphans'  Court 
a  tribunal  to  review  the  action  of  those  conducting  the  rev- 
enue department  of  the  State.  Bonaparte  v.  State,  63  Md. 
465. 

Owner  May  Inspect  Records.  "Any  owner  of  property 
shall  at  all  times  be  permitted  to  inspect  the  record  of  his 
own  property  contained  in  the  book  of  assessment  records." 
{Baltimore  City  Charter,  sec.  161.)  .Bonaparte  v.  State, 
63  Md.  465. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  115 

Palace  and  Sleeping  Cars  Not  Taxable  in  Maryland. 

This  appeal  is  from  an  order  of  the  Baltimore  City  Court 
striking  from  the  assessment  list  thirty-six  palace  cars  valued 
and  assessed  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  at  $900,000.  The 
appellee  is  a  corporation  created  by  the  State  of  Illinois 
and  has  its  principal  place  of  business  in  Chicago.  The 
cars  in  questiion  are  used  upon  the  various  railroads  that 
run  into  and  through  Maryland.  These  cars  are  not  assessa- 
ble in  this  State.  That  question  was  definitely  settled  by  the 
Court  in  two  cases.  (See  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  P.  IV.  & 
B.  R.  R.  50  Md.  397,  and  Same  v.  N.  C.  R.  R.  Co.  50  Md. 
417.)  There  was  no  error  in  the  order  of  the  City  Court. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  50  Md  457. 

Partially  Charitable  Institutions  Liable  to  Taxation. 

The  Sisters  of  Charity  of  St.  Joseph,  incorporated  by  the 
Legislature  to  promote  "works  of  piety,  charity  and  useful- 
ness, especially  for  the  care  of  the  sick,  the  succor  of  aged, 
infirm  and  necessitous  persons  and  the  education  of  young 
females,"  owns  a  farm  which,  with  the  improvements,  live 
stock,  furniture,  etc.,  was  assessed  at  $79,600.  The  evidence 
shows  that  there  are  one  or  more  buildings  used  for  academic 
purposes  in  which  there  are  seventy-two  paying  scholars  at 
$250  per  annum,  though  this  income,  it  is  insisted,  is  all 
consumed  in  sustaining  the  benevolent  object  of  the  insti- 
tution, and  the  school  is  but  a  means  to  that  end.  *  *  *  In 
Baltimore  v.  R.  R.  Co.  6  Gill,  290,  this  Court  held  "all  ex- 
emptions are  to  be  strictly  construed,  they  embrace  only  what 
is  within  their  terms."    The  liability  to  taxation  of  property 


116  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

appropriated  partly  to  worship  and  partly  to  secular  pur- 
poses  is  shown  by  the  case  of  Proprietors'  Meeting  House  v. 
City  of  Lowell,  1  Met.  541.  *  *  All  the  property  of  the  ap- 
pellees, real  and  personal,  used  in  the  conduct  of  an  academy 
or  school  for  the  education  of  young  females,  is  a  proper 
subject  for  assessment,  though  the  same  buildings  may  be 
partially  used  for  hospital  purposes  or  religious  worship.  If 
the  property  is  indivisible  so  that  the  value  of  the  several 
parts  cannot  be  ascertained  the  amount  of  the  net  income 
from  the  academy  may  be  capitalized  as  the  basis  of  assess- 
ment. County  Commrs.  of  Frederick  County  v.  Sisters  of 
St.  Joseph,  48  Md.  43. 

Patent  Rights  That  Constitute  the  Basis  of  Stock  Values. 

Shares  of  stock  in  a  corporation  the  capital  of  which  is 
chiefly  invested  in  patent  rights  are  not  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion, nor  should  the  value  of  the  patents  be  subtracted  from 
the  value  of  the  shares ;  a  tax  levied  on  the  holders  of  such 
shares  is  not  in  violation  of  Art.  1,  sec.  8,  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.    Crown  Cork  &  Seal  Co.  v.  State,  87  Md.  687. 

Paving  Tax  Law  a  Valid  Exercise  of  Legislative  Power. 
The  decision  of  the  questions  presented  on  this  appeal  in- 
volves the  construction  and  validity  of  the  Act  of  1912, 
Chap.  688,  known  as  "the  Special  Paving  Tax"  Act  for  Bal- 
timore City.  The  appellees  contend  that  the  Act  is  invalid 
and  unconstitutional  as  in  conflict  with  the  Fifteenth  and 
Twenty-third  Articles  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights  and,  also, 
with   the   Constitution   of   the   United    States.     The   cases 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  117 

bearing  upon  the  subject  of  a  special  paving  tax  are  too 
numerous  for  us  to  attempt  to  review  in  this  opinion.  While 
there  is  some  conflict  among  them  they  all  will  be  found  to 
rest  upon  the  principle  that  there  is  a  benefit  to  the  abutting 
property  by  reason  of  the  public  improvement  made  with 
the  public  funds.  The  contention  that  the  tax  is  void  be- 
cause the  proceeds  go  into  a  general  paving  fund  and  not 
raised  to  pay  for  improvements  specially  benefiting  the 
property  assessed,  we  think,  is  fully  answered  by  the  case  of 
Jeliff  v.  Newark,  48  N.  J.  Law,  102,  and  other  cases  cited 
in  the  appellant's  brief.  *  *  We  hold  that  the  Act  of  1912, 
Chap.  688,  is  a  valid  exercise  of  legislative  power  and  is 
free  from  constitutional  objections  urged  against  it.  This 
conclusion  is  in  accord  and  is  supported  by  the  principles 
announced  by  the  best  adjudged  cases  in  the  states  and  in 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Leser  v.  Wagner, 
120  Md.  671. 

Paving  Tax  on  Property  Not  on  Owner.  In  Baltimore 
a  street  paving  tax  is  imposed  on  the  property  and  not  on  the 
owner,  though  the  city  may  maintain  a  legal  action  against 
the  owner  for  the  recovery  of  the  tax.  Eschbach  v.  Pitts, 
6  Md.  71. 

Penalty  of  Evasion.  Any  person  who  fails  or  refuses 
to  give  to  the  assessor  any  bonds,  notes,  claims  or  other 
evidences  of  debt,  the  same  shall  not  be  recovered  until  they 
have  been  listed  and  the  tax  paid  thereon,  with  the  addition 
of  50  per  centum  per  annum  from  the  time  the  tax  accrued. 
Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  208. 


118  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Personal  Property  Held  in  Trust  Shall  be  Assessed  at 
the  Place  of  Residence  of  the  Cestui  Que  Trust — Validity 
of  Statute  Upheld.  This  appeal  raises  the  question  of  the 
validity  of  the  Act  of  1902,  Chap.  486,  which  prescribes 
the  method  of  assessment  and  taxation  of  personal  property. 
The  property  involved  in  this  case  consists  of  railroad  bonds, 
in  the  hands  of  a  corporation  of  Baltimore,  held  in  trust  for 
two  residents  of  Baltimore  County.  The  Act  (now  sec. 
215,  Art.  81  of  the  Code  1911)  provides  that  all  securi- 
ties and  personal  property  of  any  kind  whatsoever,  not 
exempt,  in  which  any  resident  of  any  county  of  this  State, 
has  an  equitable  interest,  with  the  legal  title  to  the  same 
in  some  other  person  or  corporation  who  is  a  resident  of 
some  other  county  or  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  shall  be 
valued  and  assessed  for  state  and  county  taxation  to  the 
equitable  owner  in  the  county  in  which  he  or  she  may  reside, 
to  the  extent  of  his  or  her  equitable  interest,  and  the  taxes 
due  thereon  shall  be  paid  by  the  holder  of  said  legal  title  to 
the  collector  of  taxes  for  the  county  or  city  in  which  said 
property  is  so  valued  and  assessed.  The  corporation,  in 
this  case,  was  assessed  for  the  securities,  an  appeal  was 
taken  to  the  City  Court,  and  that  tribunal,  relying  on  the 
Act  of  1902,  directed  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  to  abate  the 
assessment.  ***** 

As  the  Act  of  1902  specifically  fixes  the  situs  for  the  taxa- 
tion of  personal  property  held  in  trust  at  the  residence  of 
the  beneficial  owner,  the  order  appealed  from  was  properly 
passed  unless  the  Act  is  to  be  regarded  as  in  conflict  with  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  as  is  contended  by  the  appellants.   *    *    But 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  119 

we  find  nothing  in  the  interpretation  of  the  15th  Article 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights  adopted  in  Latrobe  v.  Baltimore,  19 
Md.  13,  as  that  case  has  been  construed  by  this  Court,  to 
impair  the  validity  of  the  Act  of  1902  in  regulating  the  as- 
sessment and  taxation  of  the  class  of  personal  property  in- 
volved in  the  present  case.  Baltimore  v.  Safe  Deposit  & 
Trust  Co.  97  Md.  659. 

When  property  is  held  in  trust  there  are  two  persons  each 
of  whom  in  a  certain  sense  is  its  owner.  The  trustee  who 
holds  the  title  is  the  owner  in  a  legal  and  technical  sense, 
but  the  cestui  que  trust  is  the  beneficial  and  substantial 
owner.  We  do  not  think  that  the  Legislature  has  exceeded 
its  power  over  the  subject  of  taxation  or  violated  any  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  or  Constitution  in  providing 
that  personal  property  of  the  kind  involved  in  this  case,  shall, 
for  purposes  of  assessment  and  taxation,  be  treated  as  be- 
longing to  its  substantial  owner  and  not  to  its  technical 
holder.     Ibid. 

When  the  personal  property  held  in  trust  consists  of  stock 
of  corporations  in  this  State,  the  Act  of  1902,  being  in  pan 
materia,  the  existing  laws  requiring  the  corporation  to  pay 
the  taxes  on  its  stock  for  its  stockholder,  the  two  laws  should 
be  construed  together  and  the  residence  of  the  cestui  que 
trust  be  treated  as  the  situs  for  taxation  and  the  taxes  be 
paid  by  the  corporation  in  accordance  with  the  uniform  sys- 
tem in  force  in  this  State  for  the  payment  of  such  taxes. 
Ibid. 


120  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

We  must  not  be  understood  to  hold  that  the  Act  of  1902 
is  valid  in  so  far  as  it  may  conflict  with  the  special  provision 
made  by  Sec.  51  of  Art.  3  of  the  Constitution  for  the  taxa- 
tion of  goods  and  chattels  permanently  located,  or  of  mort- 
gages  and  the  debts  thereby  secured,  or  that  the  Act  was  in- 
tended to  apply  to  leaseholds  or  any  interest  in  lands.    Ibid. 

Where  a  person  in  this  State  has  an  equitable  interest  in 
property,  the  legal  title  to  which  is  in  the  name  of  a  non- 
resident, such  equitable  owner  shall  pay  the  taxes  on  it. 
Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  2. 

Personal  Property  of  a  Cemetery  Company  Taxable. 

The  personal  property  of  a  cemetery  company  such  as  carts, 
horses,  etc.,  are  subject  to  valuation  and  assessment.  Appeal 
Tax  Court  v.  Baltimore  Cemetery  Company,  50  Md.  435. 

Persons,  not  Property,  Taxed.  In  the  State  of  Mary- 
land no  property  is  liable  to  taxation ;  persons  are  liable, 
under  the  Bill  of  Rights,  to  be  taxed  in  respect  to  property. 
Tax  Cases,  12  G.  &  J.  130. 

Taxes  of  the  kind  here  dealt  with,  are,  under  Article  15 
of  our  Declaration  of  Rights,  levied  not  on  things,  but  on  the 
owners  of  things  ;  and  the  value  of  the  thing  owned  fixed  the 
measure  of  the  owner's  liability  to  contribute  in  taxes  to- 
wards the  support  of  the  government.  Appeal  Tax  Court 
v.  Patterson,  50  Md.  366 ;  U.  S.  Elec.  Light  &  Pozver  Co. 
v.  State,  79  Md.  63 ;  Carstairs  v.  Cochran,  95  Md.  500. 

Though  the  language  employed  by  the  statute,  if  read 
literally,  may  indicate  an  intention  to  impose  the  tax  on  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  121 

property,  that  is  not  its  meaning  when  considered  in  con- 
nection with  the  settled  policy  of  Maryland  as  announced  in 
the  Declaration  of  Rights.  Car  stairs  v.  Cochwn,  95  'MV1. 
501. 

Piers  Extending  Into  the  River  Beyond  the  City  Limits 
are  Taxable  by  the  City.  The  Western  Maryland  Tidewater 
Railroad  constructed  a  coal  pier  and  a  freight  pier  on  the 
Patapsco,  projected  from  the  bulkhead  into  the  water  to  the 
pierhead  line  with  the  water  flowing  under  them.  The  whole 
cost  of  the  piers  was  $400,000.  The  appellant  states  that 
the  property  is  properly  assessable  for  only  $35,000  in  the 
city,  but  that  the  rest  is  illegal  and  void  because  the  property 
is  not  within  the  city  or  within  the  assessing  power  of  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court.  The  contention  of  the  appellees  is  that 
inasmuch  as  the  piers  are  attached  to  and  project  from  the 
land  of  the  appellant  which  borders  on  this  navigable  river, 
and  are  immovable  structures  they  are  taxable  by  the  city. 
It  is  clear  that  the  Legislature  never  intended  that  such  im- 
provements should  be  cut  in  two  at  the  point  of  high  water 
mark  on  the  bank  of  the  river  when  they  were  made,  and 
part  be  taxed  by  the  city  and  the  rest  by  the  county.  With- 
out this  right  to  use  the  land,  which  is  in  Baltimore  City, 
the  improvements  would  be  useless,  as  they  are  dependent 
upon  the  land  for  their  existence.  They  are  so  situated  as 
to  be  dependent  upon  the  city  for  police  and  fire  protection, 
and  if  the  appellants'  theory  be  correct  they  would  practi- 
cally have  neither.  *  *  *  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
city's  boundaries  (in  view  of  the  evident  intent  of  the  Legis- 


122  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

lature  in  fixing  said  boundaries)  are  coincident  with  those 
of  the  proprietors  of  lands  bounding  on  this  river,  which 
have  been  extended  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  statute 
and  that  these  piers  are  such  improvements  as  come  within 
the  principle  referred  to  above.  Western  Maryland  T.  R. 
Co.  v.  Baltimore  City,  106  Md.  561.  See,  also,  Goodsell  v. 
Lawson,  42  Md.  373;  Tome  Institute  v.  Crothers,  87  Md. 
584 ;  Hess  v.  Muir,  65  Md.  603. 

Powers  and  Duties  of  County  Commissioners  in  the 
Levying  of  Taxes.  Under  the  authority  conferred  upon 
County  Commissioners  by  Code,  Art.  25,  sec.  7,  to  "levy 
all  needful  taxes"  and  to  "pay  or  discharge  all  claims  against 
the  county  expressly  or  impliedly  authorized  by  law,"  the 
Commissioners  have  the  power  to  enter  into  a  contract  for 
a  fireproof  vault  for  the  safekeeping  of  the  records  of  the 
Circuit  Court,  and  to  levy  taxes  to  pay  the  cost  thereof. 
Smith  Fireproof  Co.  v.  Munroe,  97  Md.  371. 

The  County  Commissioners  are  a  body  politic ;  a  corpora- 
tion charged  with  the  administration  of  the  county  affairs, 
and  can  only  do  what  their  charter  powers,  by  express  lan- 
guage or  necessary  implication,  permit.  In  this  case  the  ap- 
pellant asked  for  an  injunction  against  the  County  Com- 
missioners to  prohibit  them  from  paying  to  the  Clerk  of  the 
Circuit  Court  for  Montgomery  County  the  sum  of  six  hun- 
dred dollars  for  the  preparation  of  an  index  of  the  public 
records  of  the  county,  appellant  alleging  that,  under  the  law, 
the  making  of  this  index  was  a  part  of  the  regular  duties 
of  the  Clerk,  and  that  there  was  no  authority  for  giving  him 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  123 

extra  pay  therefor.  The  Clerk  plead  a  special  order  of  the 
Circuit  Court  ordering  him  to  prepare  the  index,  said  order 
containing  a  clause  that  the  clerk  "shall  be  paid  therefor  by 
said  county  such  compensation  as  this  Court  may  deem 
reasonable."  The  Circuit  Court  dismissed  the  bill  for  an 
injunction,  and  in  this  the  Court  erred.  The  injunction 
ought  to  have  been  granted.  The  power  and  right  of  the 
court  of  equity  to  interfere  by  injunction  in  such  case  is  un- 
equivocally asserted  in  Baltimore  v.  Gill,  31  Md.  393,  and  in 
no  case  since  has  that  principle  been  questioned.  Peter  v. 
Prettyman,  62  Md.  571. 

It  is  no  longer  an  open  question  in  this  State  whether 
a  taxpayer,  having  no  other  special  interest  different  from 
that  of  the  public,  may  crave  the  interference  of  the  court 
of  equity  to  prevent  illegal  taxation.    Ibid. 

If  there  be  any  law  requiring  the  Clerk  to  do  this  work, 
at  public  expense,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  County  Com- 
missioners to  provide  for  its  payment;  but  if  the  duty  was 
upon  the  Clerk  to  make  this  special  index,  and  the  intention 
of  the  law  was  that  he  should  be  paid  in  another  way,  then 
the  claim  is  improperly  referred.  If,  by  law,  the  Court  was 
authorized  to  require  this  duty  of  the  Clerk  at  public  ex- 
pense, then  the  County  Commissioners  were  bound  to  pay 
for  it,  but  not  otherwise.    Ibid. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  Clerk  to  do  this  work  and  to  get 
his  compensation  therefor  in  fees  from  persons  desiring 
copies  of  instruments,  and  if  he  did  not  collect  such  fees,  the 
county  cannot  be  charged  with  the  result  of  his  negligence. 
Ibid. 


124  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Appellants  in  this  case  sought  an  injunction  against  the 
Commissioners  of  Baltimore  County  from  including  in  the 
levy  for  1878  three  certain  items,  viz:  "Contingent  ex- 
penses," "Deficiency  in  back  levy  of  1877,"  and  "Interest  on 
loan  authorized  by  Act  of  Assembly,"  aggregating  $83,000. 
Each  of  these  items  seems  to  be  authorized  by  law  and  were 
properly  included  in  the  levy  of  1878.  But  there  is  no 
question  as  to  the  jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the  Circuit 
Court  for  Baltimore  County  to  restrain  the  Commissioners 
from  levying  taxes  for  purposes  not  contemplated  by  the 
law.    Webster  v.  Baltimore  County,  51  Md.  399. 

In  the  appointment  of  a  person  as  tax  collector  who  at 
the  time  was  a  defaulter  for  taxes .  collected  in  previous 
years,  County  Commissioners  do  not  make  themselves  re- 
sponsible to  the  sureties  on  his  bond.  Frownfelter  v.  State, 
66  Md.  85. 

Section  17  and  sections  157  and  166,  of  Article  81  of  the 
Code,  confer  ample  powers  on  County  Commissioners  to 
revalue  previously  assessed  property  and  to  assess  new  ac- 
quisitions of  property.  It  is  essential,  however,  that  the 
owner  should  have  notice  in  each  case.  A  subsequent  ap- 
plication by  a  taxpayer  for  a  correction  does  not  cure  a  lack 
of  notice,  although  the  party  assessed  refuses  to  give  the 
Commissioners  the  name  of  the  owner  of  the  property.  The 
taxpayer's  remedy,  in  the  case  of  failure  to  receive  a  notice, 
is  an  injunction  and  not  a  writ  of  mandamus.  Baltimore 
County  v.  Winand,  77  Md.  524 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  125 

The  County  Commissioners  have  the  exclusive  power  to 
levy  and  collect  taxes,  and  in  some  cases  to  value  and  assess 
property  in  the  manner  pointed  out  by  law.  While  they  con- 
stitute a  tribunal  with  limited  and  statutory  powers,  yet 
acting  within  the  scope  of  such  powers,  their  action  is  con- 
clusive, and  cannot  be  reviewed  by  a  court  of  equity.  The 
collection  of  taxes  will  not  be  interfered  with  or  restrained 
by  a  court  of  equity  for  mere  irregularities  in  their  pro- 
ceedings, or  for  any  hardship  that  may  result  from  their  col- 
lection. It  is  only  when  the  tax  itself  is  clearly  illegal,  or  the 
tribunal  imposing  it  has  clearly  exceeded  its  powers,  or  the 
rights  of  the  taxpayers  have  been  violated,  that  the  inter- 
position of  the  special  remedy  by  injunction  can  be  success- 
fully invoked,  and  only  then  when  no  appellate  tribunal  has 
been  created  with  power  to  remedy  the  wrong.  Allegany 
County  v.  Union  Mining  Co.  61  Md.  548. 

Where  several  tracts  of  land  are  returned  by  the  owner, 
each  tract  being  known  by  a  name,  and  each  having  a  spe- 
cific number  of  acres  and  particular  location,  then  it  is  a 
manifest  error  on  the  part  of  the  Commissioner  to  change 
the  statement  and  assess  the  several  tracts  as  one  body  of 
land.    Ibid. 

County  Commissioners  cannot  change  the  method  of  as- 
sessing property,  as  provided  by  law,  but  they  have  the 
power  to  alter  the  'assessments,  as  made  by  the  assessors, 
if  the  property  has  diminished  or  increased  in  value.    Ibid. 

Where,  under  a  local  law,  the  Treasurer  of  Harford 
County  was  required  to  remit  the  full  amount  of  State  taxes 


126  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

collected  to  the  State  Treasurer,  his  commissions  are  paya- 
ble by  the  county.    Allen  v.  State,  98  Md.  700. 

Power  of  Appeal  Tax  Court  to  Classify.  The  Appeal 
Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  has  ample  authority  and  power 
to  list  and  classify  Annex  property,  as  subject  to  the  full 
city  rate,  when  the  property  reaches  that  condition  of  de- 
velopment provided  by  the  Acts  of  1888  and  1902,  and  it  has 
the  further  power  to  give  the  necessary  notice  and  a  hearing 
to  the  property  holders  whose  property  is  to  be  affected 
thereby.    Sams  v.  Fisher,  106  Md.  169. 

Power  of  Legislature  to  Exempt.  It  has  been  settled  by 
repeated  decisions  of  this  Court  that  Article  15  of  the  Decla- 
ration of  Rights  constitutes  no  bar  to  the  right  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  exempt  certain  kinds  of  property  from  taxation 
when  that  exemption  is  not  an  arbitrary  discrimination  in 
favor  of  a  particular  class.  Simpson  v.  Hopkins,  82  Md. 
488. 

Private  Alleys  Assessable.  When  the  owner  of  a  tract 
of  land  conveys  a  part  thereof  describing  one  line  as  bind- 
ing on  an  alley  of  a  designated  width  to  be  left  open  for 
use  in  common,  and  said  alley  is  a  part  of  the  land  of  the 
grantor  and  not  a  public  alley,  then  such  alley  may  be  as- 
sessed for  purposes  of  taxation  to  the  grantor  and  it  is  not 
exempted  because  of  the  creation  of  a  private  easement  on 
it.    Hill  v.  Williams,  104  Md.  595. 


Maryland  Tax  Digkst.  127 

Promise   to    Pay   Taxes   Bars   the   Four- Year   Limit. 

Where  taxes  have  been  levied  and  uncollected  for  more 
than  four  years  (when  under  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  33, 
parties  may  plead  in  bar  of  recovery)  a  promise  on  the  part 
of  the  taxpayer  to  pay  such  taxes,  made  after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  time  prescribed,  must  be  held  to  take  them  out 
of  the  operation  of  the  statute.  The  collector  has  the  right 
in  such  cases  to  enforce  their  payment  by  execution  and  sale 
of  the  property.    Perkins  v.  Dyer,  71  Md.  421. 

Public  Improvements  and  Taxes  Incident  Thereto  Left 
Exclusively  to  Municipalities.  The  quesion  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  paving  of  a  street  or  any  other  public  improve- 
ment will  benefit  property  in  the  vicinity,  is  a  question  for 
the  exclusive  judgment  of  the  Mayor  and  City  Council,  and 
their  action  is  final  and  conclusive.  Courts  have  no  power, 
under  the  law,  upon  the  demand  of  property  owners  who  are 
taxed,  to  review  the  action  of  the  citv  authorities.  Balti- 
more  v.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital,  56  Md.  28. 

The  presumption  is  that  those  who  are  specially  assessed 
for  certain  public  improvements  have  been  benefited  thereby. 
Ibid. 

Assessments  for  public  improvements  must  be  reasonable 
and  equal,  and  when  they  fail  in  this  respect  they  cease  to 
be  a  contribution  to  a  common  burden,  or  a  tax,  and  must 
be  regarded  as  an  extortion  and  confiscation,  against  the 
execution  of  which  any  citizen  may  appeal  to  the  courts  for 
relief  and  protection.     Ibid. 


128  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

The  imposition  of  a  local  assessment  for  public  improve- 
ments is  an  exercise  of  the  taxing  power,  and  an  ordinance 
for  the  repaving  of  a  street  is  not  void  because  it  failed  to 
provide  notice  upon  the  owners  of  adjacent  property.    Ibid. 

The  action  of  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore  in 
delegating  to  the  City  Commissioner  the  authority  to  ascer- 
tain the  cost  of  repaving  a  certain  part  of  Pratt  street,  and 
the  apportionment  of  cost  to  each  property  owner,  was 
proper  and  legal,  the  work  assigned  to  the  Commissioner 
being  ministerial  in  its  character  and  confined  chiefly  to  mat- 
ters of  measurement  and  arithmetical  calculation.     Ibid. 

Public  Improvements  not  Invalid  Because  Contractors 
did  not  Execute  Contract  Strictly  According  to  Its  Terms. 

By  an  Ordinance  of  1881,  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of 
Baltimore  directed  Gay  street,  between  Pratt  and  Aisquith 
streets,  to  be  repaved  with  "Camp's  Patent  Process  of  Bel- 
gian Block  Pavement,"  under  the  provisions  of  an  Ordinance 
approved  in  1874.  The  Ordinance  of  1881  provided  that 
two-thirds  of  the  cost  of  this  repaving  should  be  paid  by 
the  owners  of  the  property  abutting  on  the  street,  and  that 
the  other  one-third  should  be  defrayed  by  the  city.  An 
agreement  was  made  between  the  city  and  the  owners  of  the 
patent  for  the  paving  and  kerbing  designated  by  the  Ordi- 
nance. The  repaving,  however,  was  not  commenced  until 
March,  1882,  and  was  finished  sometime  in  the  following 
fall,  being  accepted  and  fully  paid  for  by  the  city.  There- 
upon an  injunction  was  procured  at  the  suit  of  the  appellee 
restraining  the  collection  of  the  tax,  and  from  the  decree 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  129 

making    the    injunction    perpetual    this    appeal    has    been 
taken.    *    *    * 

The  validity  of  the  tax  has  been  assailed  upon  two 
grounds,  viz :  first,  because  the  contract  between  the  city  and 
the  contractors  is  alleged  to  be  illegal  and  void ;  and  secondly, 
because  the  work  actually  done  under  the  contract  is  claimed 
not  to  be  in  accordance  either  with  the  contract  or  with  the 
Ordinance.  It  was  contended  that  the  contract  was  invalid 
because  the  work  had  not  been  done  within  the  time  speci- 
fied by  it  and  that  though  the  Ordinance  directed  the  repav- 
ing  to  be  done  with  "Camp's  Patent  Process  of  Belgian 
Block  Pavement, "  yet  the  contract,  made  under  that  Ordi- 
nance, provided  that  the  work  should  be  done  in  some  other 
and  different  manner.  It  appears  that  the  patent  provided 
that  the  bed  of  the  street  should  be  rolled  at  right  angles  to 
the  kerbing,  whereas  the  contract  provided  that  it  either 
might  be  rammed  or  rolled,  and  that  while  the  patent  pro- 
vides that  the  stones  when  laid  shall  be  placed  diagonally 
or  obliquely  to  the  road  bed,  the  contract  provides  that  they 
should  be  laid  at  right  angles  to  the  road  bed,  and  that 
while  the  patent  provides  that  the  blocks  should  be  rolled 
with  a  heavy  steam  roller,  the  contract  provides  that  each 
block  shall  be  rammed  separately  with  a  hand  rammer.  *  *  * 

As  the  provision  in  the  patent  with  respect  to  the  rolling 
of  the  street  bed  before  the  stones  are  laid  thereon,  wa» 
designed  to  secure  a  solid  bed  it  is  not  perceived  that  the 
clause  in  the  contract  allowing  the  street  bed  to  be  either 
rolled  or  rammed,  instead  of  being  only  rolled,  can  possibly 


130  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

create  any  repugnancy.  The  object  aimed  at  was  precisely 
the  same  in  both  instances,  and  the  mere  mode  of  accom- 
plishing that  object  makes  no  practical  or  substantial  differ- 
ence. There  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  patent  and  the 
contract  in  regard  to  the  mode  by  which  the  stones,  when 
laid,  are  to  be  pressed  or  driven  to  a  solid  foundation.  The 
application  of  force  was  required  to  accomplish  this  result. 
Whether  the  force  was  applied  by  the  one  or  the  other 
agency  was  wholly  immaterial,  provided  the  same  purpose 
was  accomplished.  Whilst  the  contract  provided  that  the 
stones  when  laid  should  be  covered  with  sand ;  it  also  provid- 
ed by  declaring  that  Camp's  process  should  be  used,  that  the 
spaces  between  the  stones  should  be  filled  in  with  elastic 
cement ;  and  there  was  not  in  fact,  as  shown  by  the  evidence, 
any  irreconcilability  between  them  in  this  respect.  *  *  * 

The  objection  that  the  stones  were  separately  rammed  in- 
stead of  being  rolled  with  a  steam  roller,  cannot  be  allowed 
to  prevail.  We  are  at  a  loss  to  see  what  possible  difference 
it  can  make  whether  the  one  or  the  other  means  was  adopted 
to  accomplish  the  result  intended,  namely,  the  driving  of  the 
stones  home  to  a  solid  bearing  or  foundation.  It  can  scarcely 
be  seriously  contended  that  this  pavement  after  being  com- 
pleted, is  any  the  less  Camp's  patent  process  because  a  ram- 
mer was  used  instead  of  a  steam  roller  to  force  the  stones  to 
a  solid  foundation.  The  one  mode  is  certainly  a  mechanical 
equivalent  to  the  other.  These  objections,  which  relate  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  work  was  done,  even  though  con- 
ceded to  be  departures  from  the  terms  of  the  contract,  could 
riot  on  that  account,  be  allowed  to  defeat  the  collection  of  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  131 

• 

tax.  This  doctrine  is  fully,  supported  by  authority.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  the  decree  appealed  from  was  er- 
roneous; and  that  it  must  be  reversed  and  the  bill  be  dis- 
missed.   Baltimore  v.  Raymo,  68  Md.  569. 

Purpose  of  the  "Landed  Property"  Act  of  1902  Re- 
lating to  Annexed  Territory.  The  property  involved  in 
this  controversy  is  situate  in  a  block  of  ground  bounded  by 
North  avenue,  St.  Paul,  Charles  and  Twentieth  streets.  The 
bill  avers  that  the  block  of  ground  is  surrounded  by  streets, 
paved  and  improved,  but  as  it  does  not  contain  six  dwellings 
or  storehouses  within  its  boundaries,  the  appellant  is  not 
liable  to  pay  taxes  for  city  purposes  at  a  higher  rate  than 
60  cents  per  $100  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  property.  *  *  * 
It  is  clear,  from  the  facts  in  the  case,  that  the  property  in 
question  is  not  landed  property  within  the  meaning  of  either 
the  "Foutz  Act"  or  the  provision  in  Section  19  of  the  An- 
nexation Act  of  1888.  It  is  improved  city  property;  simi- 
lar to  other  property  within  the  old  city  limits  and  by  the 
express  terms  of  the  Act,  "from  and  after  the  year  1900,  the 
property,  real  and  personal  in  the  territory  annexed,  shall 
be  liable  to  taxation  and  assessment,  in  the  same  manner  and 
form  as  similar  property  within  the  present  limits  of  the 
city."  *  *  *   * 

By  the  Act  of  1902,  Chap- 130,  landed  property  was  con- 
strued to  mean  real  estate,  whether  in  fee  simple  or  lease- 
hold, and  whether  improved  or  unimproved.  We  fully  agree 
with  the  contention  of  the  appellee  that  this  Act  was  passed 
to  prevent  property  which  was  in  no  sense  city  property 


132  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

from  being  subject  to  the  full  city  rate  until  certain  things 
were  done  by  the  city.  It  certainly  was  never  Intended  to 
affect  the  property  which,  at  the  time  of  its  passage,  was 
not  only  landed  property  but  not  even  suburban  property, 
but  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term,  city  property,  bounded 
by  the  streets,  and  enjoying  every  advantage  and  facility 
that  attaches  to  similar  property  within  the  old  city  limits. 
Hiss  v.  Baltimore,  103  Md.  623. 

There  are  two  conditions  under  which  the  full  city  rate 
may  be  imposed  upon  this  annexed  property.  First,  when 
the  "landed  property"  has  been  divided  into  lots  and  com- 
pactly built  on  with  a  view  to  fronting  on  a  street  not  yet 
constructed  but  contemplated  by  the  persons  who  project  it 
or  build  with  reference  to  it,  though  the  municipality  has  not 
opened  such  street  or  accepted  a  dedication  of  it.  Secondly, 
when,  though  still  "landed  property,"  that  is,  rural  property, 
in  the  sense  that  it  has  not  been  divided  into  lots,  it  is  inter- 
sected by  opened  and  constructed  streets — by  municipal 
authority — which  streets  form  blocks  and  upon  which  blocks 
there  are  at  least  six  houses.  In  the  second  instance,  though 
#ie  residue  of  the  block  be  unimproved  or  be  not  laid  out  in 
lots,  the  whole  block  will  be  liable  to  be  taxed  at  the  current 
city  rate,  as  soon  as  six  houses  are  erected  on  it.  Sindall  *. 
Baltimore,  93  Md.  535. 

Railroad  Exemption  Not  Transferable.  The  exemption 
from  taxation  granted  by  the  Act  of  1886  to  the  Baltimore 
&  Eastern  Shore  Ry.  was  intended  to  apply  only  to  that 
Company  and  could  not  be  transferred  to  another  corpora- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  133 

tion,  without  express  statutory  authority.     B.  C.  &  A.  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Wicomico  County,  103  Md.  277. 

Railroad  Rolling  Stock  not  Assessable  When  its  Princi- 
pal Office  is  out  of  the  State.  It  is  contended  on  the  part 
of  the  appellee  that  the  depot  and  stations  of  the  appellant 
in  the  City  of  Baltimore  must  be  regarded  as  its  principal 
office  of  business  in  this  State,  and  that  being  so,  the  domi- 
cile of  the  corporation  must  be  taken  as  located  there  so  far 
as  this  State  is  concerned,  and  in  the  absence  of  legislation 
fixing  a  different  situs  for  the  rolling  stock  of  the  appellant, 
the  portion  of  it  assessed  must  be  regarded  as  located  in 
Baltimore.  We  are  not  able  to  perceive,  however,  that  this 
position  is  tenable.  The  assessment  Act  must  have  a  reason- 
able' and  not  a  strained  construction ;  and  no  fiction  can 
justify  us  in  saying  that  any  portion  of  the  rolling  stock  is 
permanently  located  in  Baltimore.  Whether  the  home  office 
of  the  corporation  be  at  Philadelphia  or  at  Wilmington  is  a 
question  we  need  not  decide,  but  it  is  quite  certain  that  it 
is  not  in  Baltimore ;  and  the  fact  that  Baltimore  is  one  of  the 
termini  of  the  appellant's  road  can  make  no  difference  in  this 
respect.  It  is  clear,  as  the  law  now  stands,  there  can  be  no 
well  founded  claim  to  assess  this  property  in  Baltimore. 
P.  IV.  &  B.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Appeal  Tax  Court,  50  Md.  415. 

Railroad  Taxable  as  Lessee.  Where  a  railroad  com- 
pany held  real  property  under  a  city  ordinance  providing  for 
a  formal  lease  for  99  years  from  the  city  to  the  company, 
the  company  is  the  substantial  owner  and  taxable  on  the 


134  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

leasehold  interest.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Md. 
276. 

Mortgage  bonds  issued  by  a  corporation  are  taxable  to  the 
holders  thereof  in  the  counties  where  they  reside.  Mus- 
grove  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  Ill  Md.  635. 

Railroad  Tunnels  and  Bridges  not  Separately  Assessable. 

Regarding  the  Act  of  1876,  Chap.  159,  as  unrepealed  by  the 
General  Assessment  Act,  it  is  quite  plain  that  the  tunnel 
under  Hoffman  street,  belonging  to  the  Union  Railroad 
Company,  forming  a  part  of  the  roadway,  and  the  bridges 
in  the  line  of  the  road,  were  not  objects  of  separate  valua- 
tion and  assessment.  It  is  only  the  road  as  such,  irrespective 
of  the  tunnels  or  bridges  that  should  have  been  valued  and 
assessed,  that  part  of  the  road  running  through  the  tunnel 
to  be  valued  and  assessed  at  the  same  rate  that  any  other 
equal  portion  of  the  road  may  be  valued.  The  appellee  has 
an  easement  in  the  way  occupied  by  its  road,  and  whether 
that  easement  be  under  or  over  the  public  street  it  is  an  ele- 
ment of  value  to  the  road,  and  as  such  should  be  included  in 
the  valuation  of  the  road  itself.  But  few  railroad  com- 
panies have  anything  more  than  a  mere  easement  in  the  ways 
occupied  by  their  roads,  and  it  has  never  been  held  that  be- 
cause the  company  did  not  own  the  freehold  estate  in  the 
bed  of  the  road  that  nothing  but  the  mere  superstructures 
there  could  be  assessed  to  the  company.  Appeal  Tax  Court 
v.  W.  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Ml.  274. 

Receivers'  Liability  for  Taxes.  The  ordinary  remedies 
for  the  collection  of  taxes  against  property  which  is  under 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  135 

the  control  of  a  court  of  equity  are  suspended,  and  payment 
can  be  secured  only  on  order  of  the  court.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  Collector  to  apply  to  the  court  for  the  payment  of  the 
taxes,  interest  and  penalties.  When  the  Collector  fails  to 
so  apply  and  the  fund  in  the  receiver's  hand  is  disbursed 
he  cannot  recover  the  penalty  from  the  receiver.  Blakistone 
v.  State,  117  Md.  237. 

Real  Estate  to  be  Assessed  at  Its  Actual  Value  Without 
Regard  to  Mortgage  Liens.  The  appellant,  as  trustee  of 
his  wife,  is  the  owner  of  a  farm  in  Harford  County,  which 
is  assessed  for  taxation  on  the  assessment  books  of  that 
county  at  $8,320.  This  farm  is  encumbered  with  mortgage 
liens  amounting  to  $16,250.  The  appellant  applied  to  the 
County  Commissioners  to  have  the  whole  of  said  assess- 
ment abated,  because  of  said  mortgage  liens,  but  his  applica- 
tion was  refused.  His  farm  was  about  to  be  sold  for  the 
taxes,  when  he  applied  to  the  Circuit  Court  for  an  injunc- 
tion. His  application  was  refused  and  hence  this  appeal. 
The  only  question  raised  here,  or  intended  to  be  raised,  is 
whether  the  real  estate  which  is  mortgaged  should  be  as- 
sessed and  taxed  at  its  actual  assessed  value,  without  re- 
gard to  the  mortgage  liens,  or  whether  the  amount  of  such 
liens  shall  be  first  deducted  from  the  assessed  value  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  taxable  value.  The  appellant  contends  he.  is 
entitled  to  the  deduction  mentioned,  and  he  bases  his  con- 
tention upon  the  15th  Article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  which 
provides,  among  other  things,  that  "every  person  in  the  State, 
or  person  holding  property  therein,  ought  to  contribute  his 


136  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

proportion  of  public  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment according  to  his  actual  worth  in  money  and  personal 
property."  If  this  were  a  new  question,  its  importance 
would  demand  a  full  consideration  and  discussion ;  but  it  has 
been  definitely  settled  by  our  predecessors  in  the  cases  known 
as  "The  Tax  Cases  under  the  Act  of  1841"  reported  in  12 
G.  &  J.  117,  in  which  without  delivering  an  opinion,  the 
rulings  of  the  lower  Court,  refusing  the  deductions  and 
abatements  now  claimed,  were  affirmed.  Allen  v.  Harford 
County,  74  Mi.  294. 

Under  the  Act  of  1841  mortgages  were  taxed,  but  under 
our  present  revenue  system  they  are  exempt.  We  have, 
however,  in  recent  cases  clearly  recognized  the  power  of  the 
Legislature,  notwithstanding  Art.  15  of  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
to  tax  the  full  value  of  both  the  investments  of  mortgagees 
in  mortgages,  and  the  property  mortgaged  to  secure  such 
investments.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Rice,  50  Md.  319;  Bal- 
timore v.  Canton,  63  Md.  237.  The  expediency  of  such 
taxation  it  is  for  the  Legislature  alone  to  determine.    Ibid. 

Reclaiming  Taxes.  Nothing  we  have  said  is  to  be  taken 
as  holding  that  taxes  actually  paid  under  the  Act  of  1892 
can  be  reclaimed.  A  taxpayer  may  waive  his  right  to  be 
heard,  and  if  he  voluntarily  pays  a  tax  which  the  Legislature 
has  the  right  to  impose  but  which  because  of  defects  in 
the  statute  could  not  have  been  collected  by  legal  process  he 
cannot  be  allowed  to  complain  that  he  had  no  notice  of  the 
assessment  or  had  no  opportunity  to  contest  it.  Monticello 
Co.  v.  Baltimore,  90  Md.  433.     (Note.— The  defect  in  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  137 

Act  of  1892  as  to  notice,  was  cured  by  the  Act  of  1900,  Chap. 
320.) 

Reclassification  Notice.  When  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  is 
informed  that  property  within  the  Annex  territory  has  been 
brought  within  the  conditions  prescribed  by  the  Annexation 
Act  which  warrant  the  imposition  of  the  regular  city  rate  of 
taxation  they  should  first  give  notice  to  the  owner  of  their 
purpose  to  impose  that  rate  fixing  a  time  and  place  of  hear- 
ing. A  property  owner  who  has  not  received  a  proper  notice 
is  entitled  to  an  injunction  restraining  the  collection  of  the 
tax.     Baltimore  v.  Poole,  97  Md.  67. 

The  "due  notice"  required  by  the  Act  of  1908  for  the  clas- 
sification of  property  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  notice 
should  be  personally  served  in  the  process  of  taxation.  The 
notices  in  this  case  were  left  at  each  house  and  that  con- 
stituted due  notice.  Wannenwetch  v.  Baltimore,  115  Md. 
453. 

Reclassification  Power.  The  Appeal  Tax  Court  has  the 
power  to  give  the  necessary  notice  to  property  owners  whose 
property  is  to  be  affected  by  its  classification  as  city  property. 
Sams  v.  Fisher,  106  Md.  155. 

i 

Recovery  of  Taxes.  It  has  been  repeatedly  held  in  this 
State  that  where  an  Act  authorizes  a  tax  it  mav  be  recovered 
in  an  action  of  assumpsit.  Baltimore  v.  Howard,  6  H.  & 
J.  383  ;  Dashiell  v.  Baltimore,  45  Md.  615  ;  Appeal  Tax  Court 
v.  W.  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Md.  274;  Bassett  v.  Ocean  City,  118 
M'd.  119. 


138  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Registration  Does  not  Determine  Residence.  The  sole 
fact  that  the  names  of  the  appellee  in  this  case  appeared 
upon  the  registration  books  and  he  voted  in  Harford  County 
at  the  November  election,  does  not  of  itself  determine  his 
residence.    Kinehart  v.  Howard,  90  Md.  5. 

Relinquishment  of  Taxing  Power  by  State.  It  has  been 
established  by  numerous  decisions  of  this  Court,  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  by  the  whole 
current  of  authority  in  this  country,  that  the  power  of  taxa- 
tion will  never  be  held  to  be  relinquished  by  the  State  unless 
the  intention  to  relinquish  is  declared  in  clear  and  unam- 
biguous terms.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  University  of  Md., 
50  Md.  464. 

"Residence"  and  "Domicile."  ♦  There  is  a  broad  dis- 
tinction between  domicile  in  a  legal  and  technical  sense,  by 
which  one's  civil  status  and  the  rights  of  persons  and  prop- 
erty are  determined  and  residence  required  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  a  qualification  for  the  exercise  of  political  rights. 
"Domicile"  in  a  legal  sense,  has,  as  we  all  know,  a  fixed 
and  definite  meaning,  and  yet  the  word  domicile  is  nowhere 
to  be  found  in  the  Constitution.  Residence,  although  ana- 
logous in  many  respects,  is  not  to  be  understood  in  the  same 
sense  as  domicile  in  law  by  which  the  rights  of  persons  and 
property  are  governed.    Schaeffer  v.  Gilbert,  73  Md.  70. 

Residence  is  Where  One  Resides  the  Greater  Part  of 
the  Year.     The  personal  property  of  residents  of  this  State 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  139 

shall  be  subject  to  taxation  in  the  county  or  city  where  the 
resident  bona  fide  resides  for  the  greater  part  of  the  year 
for  which  the  tax  may  or  shall  be  levied,  and  not  elsewhere, 
except  goods  and  chattels  permanently  located,  which  shall 
be  taxed  in  the  city  or  county  where  they  are  so  located. 
Constitution  of  Maryland  Art.  3,  sec.  51. 

"Residence,"  as  used  in  the  Constitution,  does  not  mean 
one's  permanent  place  of  abode,  where  he  intends  to  live  all 
his  days,  or  for  an  indefinite  or  unlimited  time;  nor  does  it 
mean  one's  residence  for  a  temporary  purpose,  with  the  in- 
tention of  returning  to  his  former  residence,  when  that  pur- 
pose shall  have  been  accomplished,  but  means  one's  actual 
home,  in  the  sense  of  having  no  other  home,  whether  he  in- 
tends to  reside  there  permanently  or  for  a  definite  or  in- 
definite length  of  time.    Schaeffer  v.  Gilbert,  73  Md.  70. 

Residence  Issues  Arising  in  Decedent's  Estates.  A  will 
must  be  probated  in  the  county  in  which  the  testator  re- 
sided as  provided  by  the  Code,  Art.  93,  sec.  334,  and 
when  it  is  offered  in  an  Orphans'  Court,  the  £ourt  has  the 
power  to  inquire  and  decide  as  to  whether  decedent  was  a 
resident  of  that  county  at  the  time  of  his  death.  Ober- 
lander  v.  Emmel,  104  Md.  260. 

As  the  right  to  admit  the  will  to  probate  depends  upon 
the  residence  of  the  testator  at  the  time  of  his  death,  the 
jurisdicion  to  decide  where  that  residence  was,  is  involved 
in  and  is  an  inseparable  part  of  the  power  to  grant  the  pro- 
bate.    Stanley  v.  Safe  Deposit   Co.,  87  Md.  454.     (Also 


140  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

see  Harris  v.  Pue,  39  Md.  542 ;  Shultz  v.  Houck,  29  Md.  24 ; 
Ensor  v.  Graff,  43  Md.  294.) 

Residence  not  Dependent  on  Intention,  In  our  judg- 
ment a  change  of  domicile,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  question 
of  taxation,  could  not  be  effected  by  intention  alone,  and 
without  actual  removal.  So  long  as  appellant  continued  to 
reside  in  Charles  County  he  was  liable  to  taxation  as  a  citi- 
zen thereof.  He  notified  the  County  Commissioners  of  his 
purpose  to  remove  before  the  levy  was  made,  but  the  levy 
for  the  year  was  actually  completed  while  he  so  continued  to 
reside  in  Charles  County,  and  before  he  removed  therefrom, 
and  he  is  chargeable  with  the  taxes  assessed  for  that  year. 
Stoddert  v.   Ward,  31   Md.   568. 

A  mere  declaration  of  an  intention  to  abandon  will  not 
be  sufficient.     Vogler  v.  Geiss,  51  Md.  410. 

We  find  nothing  to  indicate  that  Miss  Dickinson  intended 
to  abandon  the  St.  Paul  street  house  as  a  residence.  Her 
absence  from  the  house  was  always  temporary  in  charactet 
and  with  an  intention  to  return.  It  was  generally  by  medi- 
cal advice,  to  regain  her  health.  It  is  obvious  that  she  did 
not  intend  to  abandon  the  house  as  a  place  of  residence. 
Barnett  v.  Dickinson,  93  Md.  268. 

The  provision  of  the  State  Constitution  provided  ttiat 
personal  property  shall  be  taxed  in  the  county  in  which  the 
owner  resides  for  the  greater  part  of  the  year  does  not  apply 
to  the  taxation  of  corporations.  B.  C.  &  A.  Ry.  Co,  v. 
Wicomico  County,  93  Md.  114. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  141 

The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  party  claiming  to  have  made 
a  change  of  residence.  Judson  on  Taxation,  p.  532  (citing 
Mitchell  v.  United  States,  21  Wall.  350 ;  Desmare  v.  United 
States,  93  U.  S.  605 ;  Dicey  on  Conflict  of  Laws,  Am.  Ed., 
p.  131). 

Where  it  is  shown  that  a  person  has  acquired  a  residence 
in  one  locality,  he  retains  the  same  until  it  is  affirmatively 
shown  that  he  has  acquired  a  residence  in  another  locality. 
Turner  v.  Crosby,  85  Md.  180. 

Temporary  absence,  with  a  continuous  intention  to  re- 
turn, will  not  deprive  one  of  his  residence,  though  it  ex- 
tends through  a  series  of  years.  Langhammer  v.  Munter, 
80  Md.  518. 

If  one  engages  in  business  in  another  state,  but  leaves  his 
family  permanently  at  his  former  place  of  residence,  he  re- 
mains taxable  there.  Nugent  v.  Bates,  51  la.  77 ;  McCutchen 
v.  Rice   Co.,  7   Fed.   558. 

Residence  of  Corporations.  A  corporation  incorporated 
by  another  state  is  a  resident  of  such  state  only :  Bank  v. 
Barle,  13  Peters,  588 ;  Ohio  &  Miss.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler, 
J  Black,  295 ;  and  must  be  treated  as  a  natural  person  would 
be  who  resides  in  such  state.  Louisville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Letson, 
2  Howard,  555. 

Residence  of  Students.  We  agree  that  where  a  residence 
of  the  appellee  at  the  college,  for  the  purpose  of  pursuing 
his  studies  would  not,  in  itself,  be  sufficient  to  prove  that 


142  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

he  meant  to  abandon  his  original  residence.  In  the  absence 
of  other  proof,  the  law  would  presume  he  was  there  for 
the  purpose  of  pursuing  his  studies,  and  this  purpose  being 
accomplished,  he  intended  to  returnto  his  former  residence. 
But  the  appellee,  who  went  from  Harford  County  to  attend 
college  in  Baltimore  City,  has  lived  in  the  latter  place  for 
seven  years,  has  supported  himself  there,  and  has  transferred 
his  registration  as  a  voter  from  the  county  to  the  city.  These 
facts,  we  think,  show  a  bona  fide  intention  to  abandon  his 
former  residence  to  make  his  actual  residence  in  Baltimore 
City.    Schaeffer  v.  Gilbert,  73  Md.  71. 

Residents  Who  Remove  After  Levy  Assessable.  So  long 
as  a  person  continues  to  reside  in  a  county  he  is  liable  to 
taxation  as  a  citizen  thereof,  and  if  the  levy  for  the  tax  is 
completed  before  he  removes  therefrom  he  is  chargeable  with 
the  taxes  for  that  year.    Stoddert  v.  Ward,  31  Md.  566. 

Right  to  Assess  for  Particular  Benefits.  The  right  to 
assess  property  in  particular  to  the  extent  that  it  is  deemed 
specially  benefited  by  local  improvements  is  to  be  referred 
to  the  power  of  taxation  and  has  been  recognized  and 
sanctioned  in  all  the  states.  The  theory  on  which  such  as- 
sessments are  made  is  that  those  whose  property  is  thus 
enhanced  and  who  thus  receive  peculiar  benefits  from  the 
improvements  should  contribute  specially  to  defray  its  cost. 
/  Lewis  Eminent  Domain,  sec.  5;  Gould  v.  Baltimore,  59 
Md.  378 ;  Hagerstown  v.  Startzman,  93  MI.  609.  The  power 
to  make  such  assessments  has  been  expressly  granted  to  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  143 

Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore  and  has  been  exer- 
cised by  it  for  a  long  time.  (Alexander  v.  Baltimore,  5  Gill, 
383.)     Latter  v.  Baltimore,  110  Md.  447. 

Rolling  Stock.  The  total  assessment  and  valuation  of 
rolling  stock  of  railroad  companies  made  in  the  assessment 
district  in  which  is  the  legal  situs  of  said  rolling  stock,  shall 
be  divided  among  the  counties  and  the  City  of  Baltimore 
in  proportion  to  the  mileage  of  the  railroads  located  in  such 
counties  and  city  respectively.  When  the  boards  of  review 
in  the  counties  and  City  of  Baltimore  have  completed  the 
assessment  they  shall  report  to  the  State  Tax  Commission 
the  total  assessment  of  the  rolling  stock  so  made  in  their  re- 
spective counties  and  in  said  city,  and  the  assessment  dis- 
trict in  which  is  the  situs  of  said  rolling  stock,  and  the  State 
Tax  Commission  shall  thereupon  make  the  apportionment 
of  such  total  valuation  among  the  several  counties  and  the 
City  of  Baltimore  according  to  the  mileage  therein,  certi- 
fying the  same  to  the  county  boards  and  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court  of  Baltimore;  and  such  proportions,  respectively, 
shall  thereafter  be  valued  and  assessed  for  purposes  of  taxa- 
tion in  such  respective  counties  and  Baltimore.  Code  1911, 
Art.  81,  sec.  212. 

The  rolling  stock  of  a  railway  whose  road  extends  through 
other  counties  of  the  State  is  not  taxable  in  the  county  in 
which  the  principal  office  of  the  corporation  is  located  since 
the  Acts  of  1896,  Chaps.  120  and  140,  B.  C.  &  A.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Wicomico  County,  93  Md.  131. 


144  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Palace  and  sleeping  cars  owned  by  a  foreign  corporation 
having  its  principal  place  of  business  outside  of  Maryland 
and  leased  to  railroad  companies  which  use  them  upon  their 
various  roads  in  Maryland  are  not  taxable  under  the  Act  of 
1896,  Chap.  260.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Pullman  Co.,  50  Md. 
456. 

Savings  Banks  Tax  a  Tax  on  the  Franchise  and  not  on 
Property  of  Banks.  Every  savings  bank  shall  pay  annually 
a  franchise  tax  to  the  amount  of  one- fourth  of  one  per 
centum  on  the  total  amount  of  deposits  held  by  such  savings 
bank.  The  State  Tax  Commissioner  shall  calculate  said 
tax  and  apportion  one-fourth  to  the  State  and  three-fourths 
to  the  county  or  city  in  which  said  bank  is  situated,  Balti- 
more's share  to  be  reported  to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court.  Code 
1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  91. 

In  Massachusetts  v.  Provident  Inst.,  12  Allen,  312,  it 
was  contended  that  a  tax  upon  the  deposits  of  savings  banks 
was  unconstitutional  because  it  was  an  arbitrary  tax  upon 
the  property  of  a  certain  class  of  corporations  only  and  not 
laid  uniformly  upon  all  property  in  the  State,  but  it  was 
held  by  the  Court  to  be  a  tax  upon  the  franchise  of  such 
corporations  and  not  upon  their  property.  Upon  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Provident  Inst.  v. 
Mass.,  6  Wallace,  630,  the  judgment  in  this  case  was  sus- 
tained.   State  v.  P.  IV.  &  B.  R.  R.  Co.,  45  Md.  380. 

The  securities  in  which  the  deposits  of  a  savings  bank 
are  invested  are  not  taxable.     The  capital  stock  and  surplus 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  145 

funds  of  a  savings  bank,  distinct  from  its  deposits,  are  taxa- 
ble after  assessment  and  levy.  Westminster  v.  Westminster 
Savings  Bank,  92  *M'd.  63. 

Deposits  of  a  savings  bank  invested  in  ground  rents  are 
not  taxable.    State  v.  Central  Savings  Bank,  67  Md.  292. 

Money  deposited  in'  savings  banks  in  other  states,  paying 
interest,  and  owned  by  residents  of  this  State  are  taxable. 
See  "evidences  of  debt"  clause,  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  2. 

If  the  defendant  bank  still  carried  on  substantiallv  the 
business  of  a  savings  bank  the  mere  fact  that  under  its  en- 
larged powers  it  did  other  banking  would  not  relieve  it 
from  liability  for  the  franchise  tax  imposed  on  the  deposits 
of  savings  banks,  but  it  would  not  be  liable  for  that  tax  if, 
since  the  Act,  it  has  conducted  a  general  banking  business 
although  it  allows  interest  on  deposit  accounts  of  over  six 
months  standing.  State  v.  German  Savings  Bank,  103  Md. 
197. 

A  savings  bank  which  has  a  capital  stock  is  subject  to  the 
franchise  tax  imposed  by  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  86,  on 
"every  savings  bank,  institution  or  corporation  organized  for 
receiving  deposits  of  money  and  paying  interest  thereon." 
Fidelity  Savings  Bank  of  Frostburg  v.  State,  103  Md.  206. 

Schedules  of  Personal  Property.  Every  person  whose 
property,  or  some  part  thereof,  has  not  been  assessed,  shall, 
when  required  by  the  Collector  of  any  county  or  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City,  give  to  such  Collector,  or 


146  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Appeal  Tax  Court,  a  full  and  particular  account  of  his  per- 
sonal property  (in  said  county  or  city),  and  of  all  the  per- 
sonal property  in  his  possession,  or  under  his  care  and  man- 
agement, liable  to  be  assessed,  and  which  before  that  time 
shall  not  have  been  assessed,  and  the  name  of  the  person  to 
whom  it  belongs.     Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  21. 

If  any  person  when  required  by  the  County  Collector  or 
Appeal  Tax  Court,  or  after  ten  days'  notice,  neglect  to 
render  the  account  required  in  section  21,  he  shall  forfeit 
a  sum  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars.  County  Collec- 
tors or  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall,  on  their  knowledge, 
and  on  the  best  information  they  can  obtain,  value  the  prop- 
erty of  such  person  to  the  utmost  sum  they  believe  the  same 
to  be  worth  in  cash,  and  the  County  Commissioners  or  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court,  shall  assess  such  person  so  returned, 
and  the  same  shall  be  collected  as  the  assessment.  Code 
1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  22. 

Securities  Assessed  at  Market  Value.  All  bonds  and 
certificates  of  indebtedness  made  by  any  corporation  and 
owned  by  residents  of  this  State  shall  be  subject  to  assess- 
ment and  valuation  at  their  market  value  for  taxation  to  the 
owner  thereof  in  the  county  or  city  in  which  he  may  reside. 
Act  of  1896,  Chap.  143. 

Municipal  taxes  on  corporate  stock  can  be  levied  only  upon 
the  valuation  thereof  by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner,  the 
municipality  having  no  power  to  increase  or  diminish  such 
valuation.   Clark  Distilling  Co.  v.  Cumberland,  95  Md.  471. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  147 

Taxes  on  corporate  stock  are  not  due  by  the  corporation 
but  by  the  individuals  who  own  the  stock,  the  corporation 
for  the  sake  of  convenience  being  made  the  agent  of  the 
state  and  county  to  collect  the  tax,  and  being  entitled  to 
charge  the  same  against  the  stockholder.  Baltimore  v.  Alle- 
gany County,  99  Md.  5 ;  Crown  Cork  &  Seal  Co.  v.  State, 
87  Md.  696. 

The  property  of  a  corporation  cannot  be  levied  on  and 
sold  for  taxes.    Hull  v.  Southern  Development  Co.,  89  Md.  9. 

Securities  Owned  by  Schools,  Etc.,  not  Exempt.       The 

railroad  and  other  stocks  owned  by  St.  Mary's  Seminary,  the 
income  of  which  is  used  for  the  benefit  of  students,  are  not 
exempt  from  taxation.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  St.  Peters 
Academy,  50  Md.  347. 

Shares  of  Stock  and  Other  Corporate  Property  Sepa- 
rate and  Distinct.  The  most  complete  proof  that  the  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  corporation,  and  the  shares  in  such 
corporation  in  the  hands  of  the  holders  of  such  shares,  are 
distinct  and  separate  properties,  is  the  conclusion  reached  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of 
Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S.  687,  that  the  property  of 
a  corporation  and  the  shares  of  a  corporation  may  both  be 
taxed  in  the  hands  of  the  respective  owners,  by  the  state 
in  which  said  corporation  has  its  situs,  and  in  which  also 
such  shareholders  reside,  and  that  such  taxation  is  not 
double.  This  ruling  affirmed  in  Deiving  v.  Perdicaries,  96 
U.  S.  196;  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Gill,  50  Md.  387. 


148  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Shares  of  Stock  as  Valued  by  State  Tax  Commission 
Binding  on  Counties  and  Cities.  Under  the  Code,  Art. 
81,  sec.  141,  as  amended  by  the  Act  of  1896,  Chap.  120,  it  is 
made  the  duty  of  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  to  furnish 
to  the  County  Commissioners  of  each  county  in  which  the 
shareholders  of  a  corporation  reside,  a  statement  of  the 
valuation  put  by  him  on  the  stock,  and  unless  that  valuation 
is  changed  by  the  Comptroller  of  the  State  Treasury  and 
the  Treasurer,  the  state,  county  and  municipal  taxes  are 
levied  thereon.  Sections  132  and  141  of  the  Act  of  1896  dis- 
tinctly declare  that  municipal  taxes  shall  be  levied  upon 
assessments  made  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  Arti- 
cle 81  of  the  Code.    *    *    * 

It  consequently  follows  that  the  valuation  of  such  shares 
so  made  by  the  Tax  Commissioner  is  the  only  valuation  upon 
which  municipal  taxes  can  be  levied.  *  *  This  being  so 
it  becomes  the  simple  duty  of  the  County  Commissioners 
and  the  several  municipalities  to  place  upon  the  assess- 
ment books  the  valuations  thus  made,  and  to  charge  each 
shareholder  at  that  valuation  with  the  number  of  shares 
owned  by  him.  Clark  Distilling  Co.  v.  Cumberland,  95 
Md.  471. 

Section  141  of  the  Act  of  1896  requires  that  the  share- 
holders shall  be  asssessed  with  the  shares  so  valued,  though 
the  company  is  burdened  with  the  duty  to  pay  the  tax,  which 
when  paid,  it  is  permitted  to  charge  to  the  account  of  the 
shareholder  for  whom  it  is  paid.  Ibid.  {Hull  v.  South. 
Dev.  Co.,  89  Md.  9;  U.S.  Elec  P.  &  L.  Co.  v.  State,  79  Md. 
70;  Am.  Coal  Co.  v.  Allegany  Co.,  59  Md.  197.) 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  149 

A  notice  by  the  city  to  each  shareholder  is  not  necessary 
and  would  be  useless  and  nugatory  if  given.  If  each  share- 
holder were  entitled  to  a  notice,  and  a  separate  right  of  ap- 
peal, it  would  be  impossible  to  fix  annually  a  valuation  on 
shares  of  capital.     Ibid. 

m 

An  entry  of  the  names  of  shareholders  and  the  number  of 
shares  owned  by  each,  grouped  together  under  the  name  of 
the  corporation,  is  a  sufficient  compliance  with  the  statute 
requiring  that  shares  be  assessed  against  shareholders.  Ibid. 

Single  Tax  Declared  to  be  Unconstitutional  Because  of 
its  Exemption  of  Personal  Property.  The  Act  of  1892, 
Chap.  285,  exempted  from  taxation  all  personal  property  in 
Hyattsville,  and  empowered  the  Board  of  Commissioners 
of  that  town  to  make  such  deductions  or  exceptions  from, 
and  additions  to,  the  assessment  made  by  the  assessors  as 
they  may  deem  just,  and  to  correct  errors  or  illegal  as- 
sessments, and,  after  such  deductions,  to  levy  a  tax  upon 
all  the  property  remaining  embraced  therein,  not  exceeding 
twenty-five  cents  per  annum  per  hundred  dollars  of  the 
valuation  thereof.  The  assessors  valued  the  land  at  $369,709 
and  the  buildings  at  $180,000.  Personal  property  was  not 
assessed  at  all.  After  due  notice  the  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners struck  from  the  assessment  roll  the  entire  valuation 
on  improvements  and  levied  a  tax  of  twenty-five  cents  on 
the  hundred  dollars  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  land.  Sun- 
dry taxpayers  applied  to  the  Circuit  Court  for  a  mandamus 
to  restore  the  valuation  of  the  improvements,  the  mandamus 
was  denied  and  an  appeal  taken.     It  is  not  to  be  assumed 


150  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

that  the  Legislature  designed  to  confer  upon  this  Board  the 
broad  power  to  exempt  all  improvements.  *  *  *  The  Decla- 
ration of  Rights,  Article  15,  provides  that  every  person  in 
the  State,  or  person  holding  property  therein,  ought  to  con- 
tribute his  proportion  of  public  taxes  for  the  support  of  the 
government  according  to  his  actual  worth  in  real  or  personal 
property.  The  Act  of  1892  attempted  to  disregard  Article 
15  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  and  to  substitute  an  ex- 
perimental, if  not  a  visionary,  scheme,  which  if  suffered  to 
obtain  a  foothold,  will  inevitably  lead  to  ruinous  conse- 
quences. *  *  The  whole  cost  of  conducting  the  municipal 
government  was  attempted  to  be  thrown  exclusively  on  the 
land.  If  the  Legislature  may  lawfully  do  this  in  this  par- 
ticular instance  of  Hyattsville,  it  may  do  the  same  thing  in 
the  case  of  a  larger  and  more  populous  municipality,  and  in 
every  county.  If  the  assessments  on  improvements  and  per- 
sonal property  be  stricken  from  the  books  in  the  several 
counties,  and  the  taxes  levied  only  upon  the  owners  of  land, 
the  burden  would  speedily  become  insufferable  and  land 
would  cease  to  be  worth  owning.  *  *  *  In  our  opinion 
the  Act  of  1892  is  null  and  void,  because  plainly  unconsti- 
tutional in  its  exemption  of  personal  property  from  assess- 
ment and  taxation.     Wells  v.  Hyattsville,  77  Md.  125. 

Situs  of  Personal  Property.  The  domicile  of  a  testator 
when  living  determines  the  situs  of  his  personal  property 
of  an  intangible  nature,  not  permanently  located  elsewhere, 
for  the  purpose  of  taxation,  and  his  place  of  domicile  at  the 
time  of  his  death  determines  the  place  of  administering  his 
estate.     Kinehart  v.  Howard,  90  Md.  5. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  151 

Shares  of  stock  in  Maryland  corporations  are  personal 
property  belonging  to  the  respective  shareholders,  and  such 
property,  when  owned  by  residents  of  this  State  can  be  made 
liable  to  taxation  only  in  the  counties  where  the  owners  re- 
side under  Constitution,  Art.  3,  sec.  51,  which  declares  that 
personal  property  of  residents  in  this  State  shall  be  subject 
to  taxation  in  the  county  or  city  where  the  resident  resides 
for  the  greater  part  of  that  year  for  which  the  tax  may  be 
levied  and  not  elsewhere  except  goods  and  chattels  per- 
manently located.  Baltimore  v.  County  Commissioners  of 
Allegany  County,  99  Md.  1. 

Special  Taxes — Legislative  Power.  It  is  the  settled  law 
of  this  State  that  the  cost  of  the  improvement  of  a  street 
may  be  assessed,  in  whole  or  in  part,  upon  the  property 
binding  upon  the  street.  In  the  case  of  Hyattsville  v.  Smith, 
105  Md.  318,  the  Court  said  there  were  two  propositions 
firmly  fixed  in  the  law  of  this  State,  namely,  "that  the  Legis- 
lature has  the  power  of  taxing  particular  districts  for  local 
benefits  or  improvements ;  and  secondly,  to  authorize  a 
municipal  corporations  to  open,  grade,  pave,  kerb,  etc.  any 
street  or  part  of  a  street  or  to  assess  the  cost  of  doing  such 
work  on  the  property  binding  on  such  street  or  part  thereof. 
Bassett  v.  Ocean  City,  118  Md.  120. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  decided  that  the  legislative  act  of 
assigning  districts  for  special  taxation  on  the  basis  of  bene- 
fits cannot  be  attacked  on  the  ground  of  error  of  judgment 
regarding  the  special  benefits  and  defeated  by  satisfying  a 
court  that  no  special  benefits  are  received.     2  Cooley  on 


152  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Taxation  p.  1208.    Quoted  by  the  Court  in  Bassett  v.  Ocean 
City,  118  Md.  120. 

The  front  foot  rule  of  apportionment  of  the  cost  of  im- 
provements has  been  recognized  and  approved  by  this  Court 
in  a  number  of  cases.  Baltimore  v.  Stewart,  92  Md.  535. 
Also  see  Baltimore  v.  Ulman,  79  Md.  469. 

It  is  conceded,  on  all  sides,  to  be  the  province  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  prescribe  how  the  apportionment  shall  be  made,  and 
this  may  be  either  by  front  foot,  by  the  area  of  the  fronting 
lots,  or  by  their  value,  including  or  excluding  the  building 
of  them.  Occasional  hardship  may  result  from  the  adoption 
of  either  mode,  but  the  authorities  are  united  in  the  conclu- 
sion that  either  may  lawfully  be  made  the  basis  of  apportion- 
ment.   Baltimore  v.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital,  56  Md.  1. 

State  and  Municipal  Taxes.  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  1,  in 
regard  to  the  levying  of  county  and  municipal  taxes, 
does  not  imply  that  State  and  local  taxes  shall  be  imposed  on 
the  same  basis.  The  arbitrary  valuation  adopted  for  con- 
venience of  collection,  as  the  basis  of  State  taxation,  is  not 
designed  to  govern  the  local  authorities,  by  which  the  tax 
is  imposed  and  collected  in  a  different  manner.  Fireman's 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  23  Md.  312. 

Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  1,  manifestly  contemplates  the 
levying  of  other  assessments  besides  that  provided  for  by 
the  Act  of  189(1,  Chap.  12.  None  of  the  sections  of  that 
Article,  nor  the  Act  of  1896,  confers  authority  upon  a 
municipality  to  levy  taxes  for  local  purposes,  nor  do  they 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  153 

provide  the  means  of  determining  what  town  property  shall 
be  burdened  with  municipal  taxes.  The  Act  of  1896  does 
not  repeal  the  mode  of  assessment  provided  by  the  charter 
of  Salisbury,  nor  the  exemption  from  taxation  contained 
therein  of  judgments  and  private  securities.  Salisbury  v. 
Jackson,  89  Md.  521. 

That  the  expression,  "city  and  municipal  taxation"  is  not 
confined  to  Baltimore  City  alone  may  readily  be  seen  by  a 
careful  study  of  the  provisions  of  Code,  Art.  81,  and 
the  amendments  thereto.  There  are  many  places  in  them 
where  Baltimore  City  is  named,  thus  showing  that  when 
the  Legislature  meant  it  alone,  it  used  the  name  of  Balti- 
more.   Frederick  County  v.  Frederick  City,  88  Md.  659. 

State  Tax  Commission.  A  legislative  act  of  1914  created 
a  State  Tax  Commission  to  take  the  place  of  the  State  Tax 
Commissioner,  that  office  being  abolished.  The  specific 
duties  of  the  Commission  are  to  equalize  assessments 
throughout  the  State  of  Maryland  and  to  provide  for  the 
review  of  all  property  for  purposes  of  assessment  at  least 
once  in  every  five  years.  The  Commission  is  given  very 
broad  powers  in  the  administration  of  the  assessment  and 
tax  laws  of  the  State.  It  has  "the  final  determination  of  as- 
sessments of  all  property  in  the  counties  and  cities  of  the 
State."  It  has  the  power  to  establish  units  for  the  assess- 
ment of  all  kinds  of  property,  to  investigate  on  its  own 
initiative,  all  assessments  in  the  State,  to  have  access  to  all 
assessment  and  tax  books,  and  to  exercise  generally  all  the 
authority  and  to  perform  the  duties  heretofore  incident  to 


154  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  office  of  the  State  Tax  Commissioner.  In  the  case  of 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  Tax  Commission  and  the 
tax  authorities  of  any  county  or  city  "the  determination  of 
the  Commission  shall  prevail."  Taxpayers  may  appeal 
from  local  taxing  bodies  to  the  State  Tax  Commission  upon 
disputed  matters  of  fact,  but  on  questions  of  law  appeals 
must  be  made  to  the  Courts  (see  Appendix  for  full  text 
of  this  Act). 

State's  Only  Taxing  Restraint.  We  are  now  consider- 
ing the  taxing  power  of  the  State.  The  only  express  pro- 
hibition to  be  found  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
on  this  power,  is  that  contained  in  the  tenth  section  of  the 
first  article  by  which  the  states  are  prohibited,  unless  with 
the  consent  of  Congress,  from  laying  any  imposts  or  duties 
on  imports  or  exports ;  and  are  also,  without  such  consent, 
prohibited  from  imposing  any  duty  on  tonnage.  This  is 
the  only  limitation  upon  the  taxing  power  of  the  states  to 
be  found  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  it  has 
been  asserted  by  very  distinguished  authority,  and  we  think 
correctly,  that  this  revenue  power,  as  it  originally  existed, 
is  subject  to  no  other  restraint.    Hozvell  v.  State,  3  Gill,  25. 

State's  Policy  in  Assessing  Real  Estate.       It   is  not 

compatible  with  public  convenience  and  the  prompt  col- 
lection of  revenue  for  the  State  to  trace  out  all  the  sub- 
divided or  qualified  interests  that  may  be  held  in  real  estate* 
and  seek  to  hold  the  various  owners  responsible.  Its  policy 
is  to  assess  the  fee  simple  value  of  land  to  the  holder  of  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  155 

possession,  where  its  real  owner  is  not  apparent  or  accessi- 
ble, leaving  the  parties  interested  to  adjust  the  proportions 
of  liability  between  themselves.  Hill  v.  Williams,  104  Md. 
604.  (Note — In  the  early  history  of  Baltimore  City  dif- 
ferent estates  in  land  were  separately  assessed.  See  Re- 
port of  Tax  Commissioner  of  1888,  Appendix  P. 
cxxxviii.) 

Stock  Exchange  Seat  not  Taxable.  A  seat  in  the  Bal- 
timore Stock  Exchange  is  not  liable  to  valuation  and  assess- 
ment and  is  not  property  within  the  meaning  of  that  term 
as  used  by  the  Bill  of  Rights.  Baltimore  v.  Johnston,  96 
Md.  747. 

Stock  Lists.  State  and  National  banks  and  other  incor- 
porated institutions  shall,  before  the  first  day  of  March, 
furnish  to  the  County  Commissioners  and  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court,  a  list  of  their  stockholders,  with  the  residence  of  each 
and  the  number  of  shares  held  by  each,  as  of  the  first  day 
of  January  preceding;  likewise  a  list  of  non-resident  stock- 
holders whose  shares  shall  be  valued  in  cash  and  the  taxes 
thereon  collected  from  said  corporations  and  taxes  so  paid 
shall  be  a  lien  on  the  shares  held  by  such  stockholders.  Code 
1911,  Art.  81,  sec.   159. 

In  no  case  shall  the  stock  of  any  corporation  be  valued  at 
less  than  the  full  value  of  the  real  estate  and  chattels,  real 
and  personal  belonging  to  such  corporation  whether  the 
shares  are  quoted  on  the  market  or  not.    Ibid. 


15t>  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

The  Appeal  Tax  Court  may  require  the  stock  list  to  be 
verified  by  oath.     Ibid. 

At  the  time  of  riling  the  stock  lists  corporations  must 
furnish  the  County  Commissioners  or  the  Appeal  Tax  Court 
a  true  statement  of  the  real  property  owned  by  them,  located 
in  the  county  or  in  Baltimore  City,  which  shall  be  valued  and 
assessed  by  the  County  Commissioners  or  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court,  giving  to  the  corporations  duplicate  certificates  of 
said  valuations  and  assessments,  to  be  transmitted  by  the 
corporations  to  the  State  Tax  Commission.    Ibid. 

Stock  lists  shall  not  be  disclosed  other  than  to  a  tax  or 
assessment  official,  or  to  parties  having  the  right  to  demand 
them.  Officials  violating  this  provision  are  subject  to  a 
fine  of  from  fifty  to  five  hundred  dollars.  Code  1911,  Art. 
81,  sec.  210. 

"Street"  Defined.  A  street  shall  be  construed  to  mean 
streets  fully  graded  and  paved.    Act  of  1902,  Chap.  130. 

Street  Railway  not  a  "Railroad"  Within  the  Meaning 
of  the  Law.  In  excepting  the  stock  of  railroad  companies 
from  assessment  under  the  Act  of  1874,  Chap.  483,  Sec.  145, 
the  Legislature  meant  railroad  companies  worked  by  steam, 
and  this  exception  was  made  because  the  State  had  imposed 
a  tax  upon  the  gross  receipts  of  such  companies  in  lieu  of 
other  taxation.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  Comptroller  to  assess 
the  shares  of  stock  of  street  railway  companies,  and  there 
can  be  no  question  as  to  the  power  of  the  Tax  Commis- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  157 

sioner  to  make  such  assessment.  *  *  *  It  was  the  duty  of 
the  street  railway  company  to  make  and  deliver  to  the  Ap- 
peal Tax  Court,  an  account  of  the  number  of  shares  of  stock 
held  by  persons  non-residents  of  the  State,  and  to  pay  the 
tax  assessed  on  such  stock,  and  charge  the  same  to  the 
account  of  such  non-resident  stockholders.  Baltimore  v. 
Baltimore  City  Passenger  Railway  Co.,  57  Md.  35. 

Suits  Against  Executors.  "An  executor  may  be  sued 
either  in  the  county  where  he  resides  or  where  he  obtains 
administration."  Code,  Art.  75,  sec.  88.  Had  appellant, 
therefore,  been  sued  in  Baltimore  County  (where  he  lived) 
his  liability  would  still  have  been  to  the  City  of  Baltimore 
(where  the  administration  was  opened)  for  taxes.  Bona- 
parte v.  State,  63  Mt.  473. 

Tax  Advertisements.  The  advertisement  of  a  tax  sale 
is  addressed  to  the  public  and  should  of  itself  contain  suffi- 
ciently definite  terms  of  description  to  apprise  the  public 
of  the  property  to  be  sold,  and  any  description  by  the  notice 
which  informs  the  public  of  the  property  to  be  sold  is  suffi- 
cient. It  is  the  identity  of  the  property  and  not  the  quality 
of  the  estate  which  the  advertisement  must  describe.  Hill 
v.  Williams,  104  Md.  605 ;  Reeside  v.  Peter,  33  Md.  120. 

"Tax"  and  '■  Assessment. ' '  The  distinction,  if  any,  be- 
tween a  tax  and  an  assessment,  is  not  very  palpable.  The 
meaning  of  the  words  is  the  same  in  our  laws.  Baltimore 
v.  Greenmount  Cemetery,  7  Md.  534. 


158  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Tax  Books  Accessible  to  All.  The  tax  books  being  pub- 
lic records,  are  open  and  accessible  sources  of  information 
to  all  citizens.  Bonaparte  v.  State,  63  Md.  470.  (The 
Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  25,  provides  that  County  Commis- 
sioners and  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall  record  the  valua- 
tion of  all  properties  in  books  "which  any  person  may  in- 
spect without  fee  or  reward.") 

Tax  Cases  Decided  Under  the  Act  of  1841,  Chap.  23— 
Status  of  Bank  Stock  and  Bank  Property.  Under  the  Act 
of  1841,  Chap.  23  (this  is  the  Act  that  created  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court),  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  valued  and 
assessed  the  capital  stock  of  the  Union  Bank  of  Maryland, 
and  also  its  real  property,  including  its  banking  house,  fur- 
niture and  fixtures.  This  bank  held,  as  proprietor,  various 
houses  and  lots  other  than  its  banking  house.  The  stock 
of  the  bank  belonged  in  part  to  various  persons  not  residents 
of  the  State,  but  residents  of  other  states,  and  of  foreign 
countries.  Other  portions  of  this  stock  belonged  to  various 
citizens  of  the  State,  and  to  certain  literary  and  charitable 
institutions.  From  such  assessment  all  the  stockholders 
respectively,  and  the  Union  Bank,  appealed  to  this  Court. 
The  capital  stock  of  a  large  number  of  other  corporations, 
including  banks,  insurance  companies,  a  railway  company 
and  a  manufacturing  company,  was  also  assessed,  all  of 
whom  "refused  to  be  taxed  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court"  and 
from  which  refusal  the  State,  in  the  name  of  the  said  Court, 
appealed  to  the  Court  of  Appeals.  The  record  also  showed 
that  George  M.  Gill  appealed  from  an  assessment  of  $7,000 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  159 

of  mortgages  owned  by  him,  which  he  claimed  was  exempt 
from  taxation  because  he  owed  a  larger  sum  on  mortgage, 
and  that  under  the  Bill  of  Rights  he  could  only  be  taxed 
upon  his  actual  worth,  while  in  fact  he  was  taxed  on  all  his 
real  and  personal  property,  including  mortgages  to  him, 
without  deduction  for  the  sum  due  by  him  on  mortgage ;  also 
Charles  F.  Mayer  appealed  from  an  assessment  on  debts  due 
to  him  secured  by  mortgage  of  real  property,  without  de- 
duction for  the  sum  due  by  him  on  mortgage,  from  which 
he  appealed.  All  the  corporations  and  persons  mentioned 
joined  in  this  appeal.     *  *  * 

The  bank  stock  in  the  hands  of  stockholders  was  properly 
taxed,  but  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  had  no  authority  to  tax 
the  real  and  personal  property  of  the  banks.  Bank  property, 
being  represented  by  the  shares  of  stock,  and  the  shares 
cannot  be  taxed  at  the  same  time.  Non-resident  and  resi- 
dent shareholders  are  taxable  alike  on  the  number  of  shares 
held  by  them.    Tax  Cases,  12  G.  &  J.  83. 

The  State  had  full  power  to  grant  the  exemptions  from 
taxation  set  forth  in  the  Act  of  1841 ;  also  the  exemptions 
granted  to  the  Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad  Com- 
pany by  the  Act  of  1827,  Chap.  172,  sec.  20;  and  to  the 
Philadelphia,  Wilmington  and  Baltimore  Railroad  Company 
by  the  Act  of  1831  Chap.  296,  sec.  19.    Ibid. 

The  Act  of  1821,  Chap.  131,  sees.  7  and  11,  secures  the 
banks  from  additional  tax  for  their  franchise,  but  it  does 
not  exempt  individual  shareholders  or  the  property  of  banks. 
Ibid. 


160  Maryland  Tax  Digest.- 

Though  the  stock  of  the  Philadelphia,  Wilmington  and 
Baltimore  Railroad  Company  was  exempted  from  taxation 
by  the  Act  of  1831,  Chap.  296,  sec.  19,  the  State  reserved  the 
right  to  tax  the  works  of  the  Company.  The  stock  of  the 
Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad  Company  is  expressly 
exempted  by  the  Act  of  1827,  Chap.  72,  sec.  20,  but  the 
mortgage  executed  to  the  State  cannot  exempt  the  property 
mortgaged  from  taxation  in  the  hands  of  the  Company  mort- 
gagor.    Ibid. 

The  Farmers'  and  Merchants'  Bank  of  Baltimore,  being 
the  holder  of  its  own  capital  stock,  is  not  taxable  thereon. 
Ibid. 

A  mortgage  in  the  hands  of  the  mortgagee,  though  his 
other  property,  including  that  which  was  mortgaged,  is  also 
taxed,  is  liable  to  valuation  and  assessment,  and  the  amount 
which  he  owes  cannot  be  deducted  therefrom.    Ibid. 

Literary  and  charitable  institutions,  exempted  under  the 
Act  of  1841,  are  not  taxable.  Ibid.  (Note. — For  later 
rulings  on  questions  involved  in  this  case  see  Wilkens  v. 
Baltimore,  103  Md.  293 ;  Consolidated  Gas  Co.  v.  Baltimore, 
101  Md.  541 ;  Crown  Cork  and  Seal  Co.  v.  State,  87  Md. 
687 ;  Baltimore  v.  Canton  Company,  63  Md.  218. 

Tax  Laws  to  be  Construed  Liberally.  While  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  loose  and  inexact  phraseology  employed  in 
many  of  the  tax  laws,  it  is  not  to  be  construed  critically  with 
a  view  to  defeat  the  enactments,  but  it  must  be  interpreted 
liberally  so  as  to  uphold  them.  Monticello  Company  v.  Bal- 
imore,  90  Md.  424. 


Maryi^and  Tax  Digest.  161 

Tax  Limitation.  The  collection  of  taxes  shall  not  be 
enforced  by  law  after  the  lapse  of  four  years  from  the  levy- 
ing of  same.  Hebb  v.  Moore,  (>6  iVTd.  167 ;  Baldwin  v.  State, 
89  Md.  587.    Baltimore  City  Charter,  sec.  843. 

Tax  Sales — Duties  and  Responsibilities  of  Collectors. 

While  the  final  ratification  of  a  tax  collector's  sale  by  the 
Circuit  Court  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  regularity  of 
the  proceedings,  it  has  no  greater  or  other  efficacy.  It  merely 
relieves  the  purchaser  of  the  onus  of  proof,  and  casts  upon 
the  person  attacking  the  sale  the  burden  of  showing  any 
irregularity ;  but  the  validity  of  the  sale  still  depends  upon 
there  having  been  a  substantial  compliance  with  all  the  es- 
sential requirements  of  the  statute.  Richardson  v.  Simpson, 
82  Md.  159;  Baumgardner  v.  Fowler,  82  Md.  631. 

If  the  Collector  should  sell  more  land  than  is  reasonably 
sufficient  to  pay  the  taxes  and  charges  thereon,  where  a 
division  is  practicable,  the  sale  will  be  set  aside.  Margraff 
v.  Cunningham,  57  Md.  587. 

A  Collector,  under  the  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  51,  may  levy 
upon  and  sell  real  estate  to  satisfy  such  taxes,  whether  there 
be  personal  property  on  the  premises  or  not.  Dyer  v.  Bos- 
well,  3D  Md.  465. 

The  sale  of  a  farm  of  the  value  of  twelve  or  fifteen  hun- 
dred dollars  to  satisfy  a  tax  bill  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five 
cents  should  be  declared  null  and  void.  Dyer  v.  Boswell, 
39  Md.  465. 


162  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Where  the  legality  of  a  sale  is  disputed,  a  buyer  of  land  at 
a  collector's  sale  must  show  that  all  the  requirements  of  the 
law  have  been  complied  with.    Ibid. 

A  collector  has  no  authority  to  sell  for  taxes  until  he  has 
made  a  levy;  without  the  levy  the  sale  is  null.  Duvall  v. 
Perkins,  77  Md.  587. 

Compliance  with  all  the  requirements  of  the  statute  is 
essential  to  the  validity  of  a  tax  sale.  Where  it  is  shown 
that  the  person  upon  whom  the  notice  was  alleged  to  have 
been  served  was  dead  at  the  time  the  proceedings  were 
fatally  defective.    Benzinger  v.  Geis,  87  Md.  708. 

The  collector  who  sells  the  property  must  make  the  deed, 
unless  the  Court  orders  his  successor  to  make  it.  Otherwise 
the  sale  is  void.  Taylor  v.  Forrest,  95  Md.  529.  (The  Act 
of  1904,  Chap.  261,  validates  the  deed  of  the  successor  of 
the  collector  who  made  the  sale,  and  does  not  violate  any  of 
the  vested  rights  of  the  owner  of  the  property.  McMahon 
v.  Crean,  109  Md.  669.) 

Tax  Titles.  A  complete  title  passes  to  the  purchaser  of 
property  a(  a  tax  sale,  all  previous  liens  and  incumbrances 
being  extinguished.    McMahon  v.  Crean,  109  Md.  652. 

Deeds  for  property  sold  at  a  tax  sale  should  be  signed 
either  by  the  Collector  who  made  the  sale  or  his  successor  in 
office.    Act  of  1904,  Chap.  281. 

The  validity  of  a  tax  sale  depends  upon  there  having 
been  in  the  antecedent  proceedings  a  proper  compliance  with 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  163 

the  requirements  of  the  law.  The  order  of  a  Circuit  Court 
ratifying  a  sale  is  only  prima  facie  evidence  of  its  regularity. 
Richardson  v.  Simpson,  82  Md.  155. 

Taxation  of  Property  Owned  by  Non-Residents — Lia- 
bility of  Custodians  of  Distilled  Spirits.  Sections  214  to 
224  of  Article  81  of  the  Code  of  General  Public  Laws  re- 
quire that  the  custodian  of  distilled  spirits  shall  pay  for  the 
owner  the  taxes  levied  with  reference  to  the  property  but 
reserve  a  lien  upon  it  as  a  means  of  reimbursement  for  the 
payment.  This  legislation  is  claimed  to  be  in  violation  of 
Article  15  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights.  The  proposition 
is  that  inasmuch  as  Article  15,  as  construed  by  this  Court, 
permits  taxes  to  be  levied  in  personam  but  not  in  rem,  and  as 
the  provisions  in  question  have  accordingly  been  held  to 
contemplate  that  taxation  of  the  owner  of  the  assessed  com- 
modity, therefore  the  requirement  compelling  the  mere  cus- 
todian to  pay  such  taxes,  though  allowing  him  a  lien  for  his 
protection,  is  not  a  valid  exercise  of  the  power  of  taxation 
thus  restricted  and  amounts  to  the  taking  of  property  with- 
out due  process  of  law.  The  validity  of  the  statute  in  con- 
troversy was  sustained  in  Monticello  Distilling  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, 90  Md.  416;  Fowble  v.  Kemp,  92  Md.  637;  Carstairs 
v.  Cochran,  95  Md.  488 ;  Hannis  Distilling  Co.  v.  Baltimore, 
216  U.  S.  285.  In  the  last  case  cited  the  identical  reason 
now  submitted  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  question  was 
presented  and  ruled  insufficient.  It  was  then  held  that  as 
the  statute  had  been  declared  by  this  Court  to  be  a  valid 
exercise  of  taxing  power,  and  had  been  found  in  Carstairs 


164  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

v.  Cochran,  193  U.  S.  10,  not  to  be  in  conflict  with  the 
Federal  question,  there  was  nothing  in  the  case  upon  which 
to  base  a  Federal  question,  and  the  appeal  was  dismissed. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  more  effectual  conclu- 
sion of  an  issue.  In  the  pleas  it  is  alleged  that  the  owners 
of  the  distilled  spirits  are  non-residents  of  "Maryland,  and 
consequently  not  liable  to  taxation  by  this  State.  If  foreign 
corporations  were  exempt  "from  the  duty  imposed  generally 
upon  custodians  of  distilled  spirits  to  pay  the  taxes  owing 
by  the  owner,  the  whole  system  of  taxation  with  reference 
to  that  class  of  property,  would  be  deranged,  and  a  large 
proportion  of  the  revenue  to  which  this  State  is  entitled 
from  that  source  would  be  rendered  uncollectible.  Hannis 
Distilling  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  111  Md.  678. 

Taxes  Due  by  a  Trust  Estate  not  Barred  by  the  Statute 
of  Limitation.  By  request  of  parties  interested,  a  trust 
estate,  which  had  been  created  by  will,  was  brought  into  an 
equity  court  and  its  supervision  assumed  by  the  Court.  On 
*M*arch  13th,  1876,  the  trustees  sold  certain  real  property 
belonging  to  the  estate.  The  deed  was  made  to  the  pur- 
chaser September  28th,  1877,  the  sale  having  been  ratified 
on  May  4th,  1876.  The  property  was  to  be  conveyed  free  of 
all  taxes.  In  September,  1875,  the  City  of  Baltimore  had 
assessed  the  property  for  the  grading,  paving  and  kerbing 
of  an  adjacent  street.  A  bill  for  this  assessment  was  de- 
livered to  one  of  the  trustees  in  November,  1875,  demanding 
payment,  and  a  thirty  day  notice  was  given  in  April,  1876. 
But  the  taxes  were   withheld   because   a   question   of   the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  165 

legality  of  the  assessment  had  been  raised.  The  purchaser, 
being  anxious  to  get  possession  of  the  property,  proposed  to 
pay  the  purchase  price,  and  to  deposit  with  a  banker  a  check 
for  the  amount  of  taxes.  This  was  agreed  to,  the  purchase 
price  paid  and  the  check  deposited.  The  city  was  not  a 
party  to  this  transaction,  and  made  no  effort  to  enforce  its 
claim  until  after  four  years  had  expired,  when  it  brought 
suit,  asking  that  the  amount  of  the  assessment  be  paid  out  of 
the  check.  The  trustees  plead  the  Statute  of  Limita- 
tions. *  *  *  * 

The  proof  clearly  shows  that  due  notice  was  given  to  the 
trustees  of  the  charge  on  the  property,  and  that  due  demand 
was  made,  for  payment  of  the  assessment,  within  the  time 
prescribed  by  law.  And  such  being  the  case,  it  became  the 
duty  of  the  trustees,  as  well  by  the  terms  of  the  sale  as  by 
the  express  terms  of  the  Statute,  to  pay  all  assessments  and 
taxes  binding  on  the  property.  With  this  knowledge  and 
duty  on  their  part,  the  trustees  received  and  held  the  amount 
of  money  in  question,  applicable  to  the  payment  of  the  as- 
sessment due,  in  trust  for  the  city.  Having  so  received  the 
money  and  set  it  apart  for  the  express  purpose,  the  trustees 
cannot  now  be  allowed  to  avoid  their  duty,  and  take  advan- 
tage of  their  own  delay,  by  setting  up  the  defense  taken  in 
this  case.     Gould  v.  Baltimore,  58  Md.  52. 

Taxes   Due   by   Trustees   not   Barred   by   Limitation. 

In  the  distribution  of  a  trust  estate  all  the  taxes  due  must 
be  paid  under  sec.  63  of  Art.  81  of  the  Code,  which  pro- 
vides that  "all  sums  due  and  arrears  for  taxes  from  the  party 


166  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

whose  property  is  sold  (at  trustee's  sale)  shall  be  first  paid 
and  satisfied."  There  is  no  exception.  The  only  thing  to 
be  known  is  that  they  are  in  arrear  and  unpaid.  The  four- 
year  Statute  of  Limitation  provided  for  in  the  Act  of  1874, 
Chap.  483,  sec.  82,  does  not  apply  to  a  trust  estate.  Hebb  v. 
Moore,  66  Md.  167. 

Taxes  in  Arrears.  Though  under  Code,  Art.  81,  sec. 
72,  taxes  are  not  due  and  in  arrears  until  the  first  day 
of  January  succeeding  their  levy,  they  may  be  paid  at  any 
time  after  they  have  been  levied.  Condon  v.  Maynard,  71 
Md.  604. 

The  taxes  must  necessarily  be  due  before  payment  can 
be  enforced.     Ibid. 

Taxes  are  not  in  arrears  until  the  first  day  of  January 
next  succeeding  the  date  of  their  levy,  and  this  suit,  having 
been  brought  in  August,  1905,  for  taxes  levied  January  1st, 
1905,  cannot  be  maintained.  Baltimore  v.  Chester  River  S. 
Co.,  103  Md.  411. 

Under  the  order  of  an  equity  court  certain  real  estate 
having  been  sold  in  September,  1877,  the  State  and  county 
taxes  for  that  year  are  not  allowed  because  they  were  not 
due  and  in  arrears  until  January,  1878.  Wheeler  v.  Addi- 
son, 54  Md.  41. 

The  taxes  included  in  said  levy  (November)  on  real 
estate  or  chattels  real,  and  on  all  forms  of  personal  property, 
including  shares  of  stock  and  other  property,  valued  and 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  1G7 

subject  to  valuation  by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner,  shall 
be  in  arrears  on  the  first  day  of  July  next  ensuing  the  date 
of  their  levy,  and  the  taxes  on  all  forms  of  property  after 
they  become  in  arrears  shall  bear  interest  at  the  rate  of  six 
per  centum  per  annum.  Act  of  1914,  amending  sees.  167 
and  171  of  the  Baltimore  City  Charter. 

Taxes  Paid  in  Error  or  Misapprehension  of  the  Law  Not 
Refundable  When  no  Injustice  is  Involved.  This  is  an  ap- 
plication by  the  appellant  against  the  appellees,  to  require 
the  latter  to  levy  the  sum  of  $40,100.41,  to  the  use  of  the 
former,  for  taxes  alleged  to  have  been  erroneously  levied 
and  paid.  The  supposed  right  to  relief  is  founded  upon  the 
Code,  Art.  28,  sec.  7,  which  provides  that  the  County 
Commissioners  shall,  ^when  satisfied  that  any  error  has 
arisen  by  assessing  property  not  liable  to  be  assessed,  rectify 
such  error  and  levy  and  pay  to  the  proper  person  any  money 
that  may  have  been  paid  in  consequence  of  such  error."  By 
the  local  law  of  Allegany  County,  it  was  provided  that  the 
"incorporated  institutions  and  companies  of  Allegany  Coun- 
ty, whether  they  have  or  have  not  declared  any  dividend 
or  earned  any  profits,  shall  pay  the  State  and  County  taxes 
levied  upon  the  assessed  value  of  their  capital  stock,  held  by 
stockholders,  residents  or  non-residents  of  said  county ;  but 
the  holders  of  said  stock  shall  not  be  liable  to  taxation  upon 
the  stock  held  by  them."  Under  this  provision  of  the  local 
statute,  and  without  supposing  that  the  same  had  been  re- 
pealed by  either  the  general  assessment  Act  of  1866,  or  that 
of  1876,  the  capital  stock  of  the  appellant  was  assessed  by  the 


168  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

assessors,  appointed  under  the  general  assessment  Act,  in 
pursuance  of  the  local  law,  instead  of  the  general  assess- 
ment law ;  and  the  appellant  paid  the  taxes  on  such  capital 
stock  so  assessed,  from  1867  to  1878,  inclusive.  But  in  1880 
this  Court  decided  that  the  provisions  of  the  local  law  had 
been  repealed  by  the  provisions  of  the  general  assessment 
Act  of  1866.  By  the  Act  of  1866  and  the  Act  of  1876,  the 
shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  all  corporations,  liable  to  tax- 
ation, were  directed  to  be  assessed  to  the  resident  holders 
of  such  stock  in  the  city  or  county  where  the  holders  re- 
sided.   *    *    * 

It  is  a  well  settled  principle,  that  if  a  party  through  some 
mistake,  misapprehension,  or  foregetfulness,  of  facts,  re- 
ceives money  to  which  he  is  not  justly  and  legally  entitled, 
and  which  he  ought  not  to  retain,  the  law  regards  him  as  the 
receiver  and  holder  of  the  money  for  the  use  of  the  lawful 
owner  of  it,  and  raises  an  implied  promise  on  his  part  to 
pay  over  the  amount  to  such  owner;  and  if  the  money  be 
withheld  from  the  owner,  an  action  for  money  had  and  re- 
ceived may  be  maintained.  Kelley  v.  Solari,  9  "M*.  &  W.  54 ; 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Faunce,  6  Gill,  69,  77.  *  *   *   *   * 

But,  conceding  that  action  for  money  had  and  received 
to  lie  for  taxes  paid  under  a  mistake  of  fact  it  is  insisted 
that  no  such  action  could  be  maintained  for  the  recovery  of 
the  money  claimed  in  this  case,  because  here  the  taxes  were 
paid  under  a  mistake  of  law.  And  it  is  certainly  true,  as  a 
general  principle,  according  to  the  decisions  of  this  Court, 
that  where  taxes  have  been  paid  under  a  mistake  of  law, 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  169 

they  cannot  be  recovered  back  in  an  action  at  law.  Balti- 
more v.  Lefferman,  4  Gill,  431 ;  Lester  v.  Baltimore,  29  Md. 
41  *i 

When  County  Commissioners  are  satisfied  that  a  mistake 
has  been  made  in  assessing  property  which  is  not  assessable 
it  is  their  duty  to  refund  the  taxes  thus  erroneously  received 
and  under  the  Code,  Art.  28,  sec.  7,  it  would  make  no  dif- 
ference as  to  whether  the  taxes  were  paid  under  a  mistake 
of  law  or  a  mistake  of  fact.   ***** 

As  we  have  already  stated,  the  stock  of  the  appellant  was 
not  assessed  and  made  liable  to  taxation  in  any  other  part 
of  the  State  for  county  or  city  purposes,  from  1866  to  1879. 
The  stockholders  of  the  appellant  were  equally  liable  to  as- 
sessment as  the  stockholders  of  any  of  the  other  corporations 
in  other  parts  of  the  State ;  and,  therefore,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  there  is  no  very  persuasive  equity 
in  favor  of  the  application.  It  is  simply  the  case  of  a  party 
paying  taxes  on  its  property  to  the  authorities  of  one 
locality,  by  mutual  mistake  or  misapprehension  of  the  law, 
when  that  property  could,  and  should,  have  been  assessed 
and  made  liable  to  taxation  in  different  localities  of  the 
State,  but  from  which  it  escaped  by  reason  of  such  mutual 
mistake  of  the  parties  concerned.  George's  Creek  Coal  & 
Iron  Co.  v.  Allegany  County,  59  Md.  260. 

Taxes  Voluntarily  Paid  Cannot  be  Recovered.  This  is 
an  action  of  assumpsit  brought  by  the  appellee  to  recover  the 
amount  of  taxes  erroneously  paid  the  appellant  by  her  for 


170    ,  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

the  years  1907  and  1908.  Plaintiff  was  the  owner  of  prop- 
erty in  the  Annex  to  Baltimore  City  against  which  she 
had  received  a  tax  bill  at  the  full  city  rate  for  the  above 
two  years,  which  she  paid.  Subsequently  the  Circuit  Court 
decided,  in  another  case,  that  property  located  in  the  same 
block  as  that  of  the  appellee  was  only  taxable  for  those  two 
years  at  the  sixty  cent  rate.  The  Appeal  Tax  Court  refused 
to  refund  the  amount  overpaid  and  the  appellee  herein 
brought  suit  for  recovery.  There  was  a  verdict  in  her  favor 
and  the  City  of  Baltimore  appealed.  It  is  admitted  by  the 
appellee  that  it  is  a  recognized  general  rule  of  law  that  taxes 
voluntarily  paid  under  a  mistake  of  law  cannot  be  recovered 
back,  but  it  is  contended  that  there  are  certain  exceptions. 
One  of  the  exceptions  relied  upon  is  thus  stated  in  brief : 
"Where  there  was  no  legal  or  moral  obligation  to  pay  and 
the  recipient  has  no  right  in  good  conscience  to  restrain." 
Conceding  that  such  an  exception  may  exist  in  some  cases, 
it  has  never  been  applied  in  this  State  to  suits  brought  to 
recover  taxes  paid  under  a  mistake  of  law.  Another  ex- 
ception is  "Where  the  law  is  doubtful,"  as  was  held  by  this 
Court  in  Lester  v.  Baltimore,  29  Md.  415.  *  *  * 

It  is  claimed  for  the  appellee  that,  "Ordinance  No.  88, 
approved  June  27th,  1973,  codified  under  Art.  38,  sec.  5, 
City  Code  1906,  does  give  her  the  right  to  recover  the  ex- 
cess which  she  paid.  Without  some  express  authority  given 
by  the  statute  we  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  a  municipality 
can  by  ordinance  change  the  common  law  of  the  State  to 
such  an  extent  as  is  claimed  here.  *  *  The  probabilities  are 
that  the  ordinance  was  intended  to  authorize  the  Appeal 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  171 

Tax  Court  to  correct  errors  and  refund  money  paid  under  a 
mistake  of  fact,  but,  however  that  may  be,  we  are  of  the 
opinion  that  it  does  not  authorize  an  action  under  such  facts 
and  circumstances  as  exist  in  this  case.   *   * 

Inasmuch  as  owners  of  property  in  the  Annex  have  full 
opportunity  to  have  such  questions  determined  in  advance 
they  ought  not  be  encouraged  to  adopt  the  course  the  appellee 
has  pursued,  and  then,  if  some  other  person  succeeds  in  hav- 
ing the  increase  declared  illegal,  subject  the  city  to  a  suit 
to  recover  the  money  back,  even  if  that  could  be  done,  which 
we  are  of  the  opinion  could  not  be  done,  under  existing  laws. 
It  would  necessarily  cause  much  confusion  if  it  was  author- 
ized and  might  work  a  great  hardship  on  other  taxpayers  to 
have  a  large  number  of  owners  of  property  pay  their  taxes 
year  after  year  and  then  finally  sue  the  city.  *  *  When  a 
party  pays  the  tax  without  resorting  to  his  remedy  under  the 
Statute  or  in  equity  he  cannot  recover  it  back  as  a  general 
rule,  and  this  case  furnishes  no  exception  to  that  rule.  Balti- 
more v.  Harvey,  118  Md.  275. 

It  is  now  established  by  an  unbroken  series  of  adjudica- 
tions in  the  English  and  American  Courts  that  where  money 
is  voluntarily  and  fairly  paid,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the 
facts  and  circumstances,  it  cannot  be  recovered  back  in  a 
Court  of  law,  upon  the  ground  that  the  payment  was  made 
under  a  misapprehension  of  the  legal  rights  and  obligations 
of  the  party.  Baltimore  v.  Lefferman,  4  Gill,  425 ;  also  Mor- 
ris v.  Baltimore,  5  Gill,  244. 


172  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

a 

There  are  many  doubtful  questions  of  law.  When  they 
arise,  the  party  of  whom  the  claim  is  made,  has  an  option 
either  to  litigate  the  question  or  submit  to  the  demand  and 
pay  the  money.  But  it  would  be  both  mischievous  and  un- 
just if  he,  who  has  acquiesced  in  the  right  by  voluntary  pay- 
ment, should  be  at  liberty  at  any  time  within  the  Statute 
of  Limitations  to  rip  up  the  matter  and  recover  back  the 
money.  The  plaintiff  in  this  case  (an  action  of  assumpsit 
to  recover  back  money  paid  for  a  tax  assessed  his  lot  which, 
in  Baltimore  v.  Porter,  18  Md.  284,  had  been  held  to  be  il- 
legal) having  failed  to  avail  himself  of  a  legal  remedy  for 
his  protection  must  abide  by  his  election.  Lester  v.  Balti- 
more, 29  Md.  415. 

It  is  certainly  true,  as  a  general  principle,  according  to 
the  decisions  of  this  Court,  that  where  taxes  have  been  paid 
under  a  mistake  of  law,  they  cannot  be  recovered  back  in  an 
action  at  law.  G.  C.  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Allegany  County, 
59  Md.  255. 

Taxing  Power  of  Counties.  Counties  have  "no  inherent 
power  of  taxation."  What  power  they  exercise  must  be 
delegated  to  them  by  the  Legislature,  subject  to  every  con- 
stitutional limitation  to  which  the  taxing  power  of  he  Legis- 
lature is  subject.  Baltimore  &  E.  S.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Spring, 
80  Md.  517;  St.  Mary's  Ind.  School  v.  Brown.  45  Md.  333. 

The  Act  of  1888  Annexing  Certain  Territory  to  Balti- 
more City  Not  a  Contract.  By  an  Act  passed  at  the  Jan- 
uary session  of  the  Legislature  of  1888,  provision  was  made 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  173 

for  annexing  to  the  City  of  Baltimore  part  of  the  territory 
then  within  the  limits  of  Baltimore  County.  By  sec.  19  of 
the  Act  of  1888,  it  is  enacted  that  until  after  the  year  1900 
the  property  situated  in  the  annexed  districts  should  remain 
assessed  at  the  valuation  fixed  by  the  Baltimore  County 
authorities  and  that  the  owners  of  that  property  should  only 
be  charged  at  the  rate  of  sixty  cents  on  the  $100.  The  same 
section  further  provides  that  from  and  after  the  year  1900 
"the  property,  real  and  personal,  in  the  said  territory  so 
annexed,  shall  be  liable  to  taxation  and  assessment  there- 
for, in  the  same  manner  and  form  as  similar  property  with- 
in  the  present  limits  of  the  said  city  may  be  liable;  provided, 
however,  that  after  the  year  1900,  the  present  county  rate 
of  taxation  shall  not  be  increased  for  city  purposes  on  any 
landed  property  within  the  said  territory,  until  avenues, 
streets  or  alleys  shall  have  been  opened  and  constructed 
through  the  same,  nor  until  there  shall  be  upon  every  block 
of  ground  so  to  be  formed,  at  least  six  dwellings  or  store 
houses  ready  for  occupation.  *  *  *  *  * 

The  validity  of  this  statute  was  assailed  on  various 
grounds  but  in  Daly  v.  Morgan,  69  Md.  460,  it  was  fully  and 
finally  upheld.  At  the  legislative  session  of  1902,  an  Act 
was  passed  that  defined  the  terms  used  in  the  original  Act 
of  1888  and  this  is  the  statute  which  is  now  attacked  as  un- 
contsitutional  and  void.  By  this  last  mentioned  Act  landed 
property  was  defined  to  mean  "real  estate,"  whether  in  fee 
simple  or  leasehold,  and  whether  improved  or  unimproved ; 
"until  avenues,  streets,  or  alleys  shall  have  been  opened  and 
constructed,"    shall   be   construed    to    mean   until    avenues. 


174  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

streets  or  alleys,  shall  have  been  opened  graded,  kerbed  or 
otherwise  improved  from  kerb  to  kerb  by  a  pavement,  maca- 
dam, gravel  or  other  substantial  material ;  the  words  "ave- 
nues," "streets,"  and  "alleys,"  being  herein  used  interchange- 
ably ;  "block  of  ground,"  shall  be  construed  to  mean  an  area 
of  ground  not  exceeding  two  hundred  thousand  superficial 
square  feet  formed  and  bounded  on  all  sides  by  intersecting 
avenues,  streets,  or  alleys,  opened,  graded,  kerbed  and  other- 
wise improved  from  kerb  to  kerb  by  pavement,  macadam, 
gravel  or  other  substantial  material  as  above."  ***** 

The  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore  treating  the 
Act  of  1902  as  invalid,  proceeded  to  levy  against  the  ap- 
pellant and  others  living  in  the  belt  and  similarly  situated, 
the  current  city  rate,  whereupon  the  pending  bill  was  filed 
to  restrain  the  levy  and  collection  of  that  tax.  The  sole 
ground  upon  which  its  validity  is  questioned  is  that  it  im- 
pairs the  obligation  of  the  contract  supposed  to  be  involved 
in  the  Act  of  1888.  We  have  no  difficulty  in  holding  that 
the  Act  of  1888  neither  evidences  or  contains  the  constituents 
of  a  contract.  The  purpose  of  the  Act  was  to  enlarge  the 
municipal  limits  of  the  City  of  Baltimore.  The  provision 
regulating  the  rate  of  taxation  was  merely  the  exercising  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  its  undoubted  authority  over  the 
subject  of  taxation.  It  conferred  upon  the  City  of  Balti- 
more the  power  to  tax  individuals  who  prior  to  its  passage 
had  not  been  within  its  taxing  jurisdiction,  but  the  granting 
of  that  power  to  the  municipality  was  not  the  grant  of  pri- 
vate property,  nor  the  creation  of  a  vested  right,  much  less 
was  it  a  contract.     The  authority  given  to  the  city  to  tax 


Maryland  Tax  Digkst.  175 

the  inhabitants  in  the  belt  was  a  governmental  power  that 
was  conferred,  and  like  every  other  similar  power  conferred 
upon  a  municipality,  was  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  The  Maryland  cases  fully  sustain  this  propo- 
sition. State  v.B.&  O  R.  R.  Co.  12  G.  &  J.  437.  The  fact 
that  the  majority  of  the  voters  in  two  of  the  districts  voted 
in  favor  of  annexation  does  not  convert  the  Act  of  1888 
into  a  contract.     *    *    *    * 

A  court  of  equity  has  undoubted  jurisdiction  to  restrain 
the  levy  and  collection  of  a  tax  attempted  to  be  levied  ille- 
gally. Remedy  there  must  be  in  some  form,  for  so  serious 
a  wrong  could  not  be  permitted  to  go  unredressed.  It  is  in- 
sisted that  the  appellant  could,  by  a  timely  appeal  to  the 
Baltimore  City  Court,  have  obtained  complete  relief  and 
therefore  that  equity  was  without  jurisdiction  to  aid  him. 
We  cannot  accept  that  view.  We  concur  in  the  conclusion 
reached  by  the  Judge  below  that  the  Act  of  1888  does  not 
constitute  a  contract,  but  we  differ  from  the  view  he  took  to 
the  effect  that  equity  was  powerless  to  intervene  in  such  a 
case  as  this  record  presents.  Joesting  v.  Baltimore,  97  Md. 
594. 

The  Thirty  Cents  Local  and  Fifteen  Cents  State  Tax  on 
Securities.  Bonds  and  other  evidences  of  debt  issued  by 
any  corporation  incorporated  in  or  out  of  the  State,  or  by 
any  state  except  Maryland,  and  shares  in  any  bank  other 
than  a  National  bank,  owned  by  residents  of  this  State  shall 
be  assessed  for  municipal  and  county  purposes  at  their  mar- 
ket value,  at  the  rate  of  thirty  cents  on  the  one  hundred 


176  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

dollars.  Those  upon  which  no  dividend  shall  be  paid  shall 
not  be  valued  at  all.  Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  214.  For 
State  purposes  dividend  paving  shares  shall  be  assessed  at 
fifteen  cents  on  the  hundred  dollars.  Act  of  1914,  Chap. 
411.     See  Appendix  for  full  text  of  Act. 

The  Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  214,  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the 
county  or  municipal  purposes  on  these  securities.  Nor  can 
there  be  any  question  as  to  the  amount  of  tax  that  can  be 
levied  in  addition  to  the  State  tax,  as  the  law  says  there  shall 
be  paid  on  such  valuation  thirty  cents  (and  no  more)  on  each 
one  hundred  dollars  for  county  and  municipal  taxation. 
There  is  an  express  prohibition  against  exacting  a  greater 
amount  than  thirty  cents.  Courts  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  wisdom  of  such  provisions  as  long  as  they  do  not  con- 
flict with  the  law.  Frederick  County  v.  Frederick  City, 
88  Md.  656. 

(For  other  Maryland  decisions  involving  the  thirty-cent 
security  tax  Act,  see  Baltimore  v.  Johnson.  5)6  Md.  745; 
Consolidated  Gas  Company  v.  Baltimore,  101  Md.  556; 
J3ank  of  Baltimore,  v.  Baltimore,  92  Fed.  239,  affirmed  in  100 
Fed.  24;  Consolidated  Gas  Company  v.  Baltimore,  105  Md. 
50;  Baltimore  v.  State,  105  Md.  1,  11;  Schley  v.  Mont- 
gomery County,  106  M*d.  410 ;  Musgrove  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R. 
Co.,  Ill  Md.  639.  In  none  of  these  was  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Act  questioned.) 

The  Poll  Tax  Declared  to  be  "Grievous  and  Burden- 
some" in  the  Declaration  of  Rights — History  Thereof. 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  177 

Is  compulsory  labor  imposed  upon  persons  residing  in  the 
several  election  districts  of  a  county  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  the  roads  in  repair,  with  the  privilege  of  providing 
a  substitute,  or  the  payment  of  a  stipulated  sum  in  lieu  of 
such  personal  service,  a  "levying  of  taxes  by  the  poll,"  with- 
in the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  ?  Such  compulsory  labor 
is  beyond  question  a  burden  on  the  persons  upon  whom  it  is 
imposed ;  and  though  it  assumes  the  form  of  labor,  it  may 
be  fairly  considered,  in  the  nature  of  a  tax.  At  the  same 
time,  when  this  article  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  construed  in 
the  light  of  the  legislation  in  regard  to  levying  taxes  by  the 
poll  in  force  when  the  Constitution  of  1776  was  adopted ;  and 
in  the  light  of  the  legislation  in  regard  to  compulsory  labor  on 
the  public  roads,  also  in  force  at  that  time,  and  which  has 
continued  in  force  down  to  the  present,  it  is  clear  that  com- 
pulsory labor  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  roads  in  re- 
pair has  never  been  considered  as  a  poll  tax,  prohibited  by 
the  Constitution.  A  brief  reference  to  the  legislation  in 
force  when  the  Constitution  of  1776  was  adopted  will  clearly 
show  the  nature  and  character  of  poll  taxes,  the  levying  of 
which  was  declared  to  be  grievous  and  oppressive,  and  ought 
to  be  abolished.  If  we  turn  to  the  Act  of  1715,  Chap.  15, 
we  find  that  all  persons,  male  and  females,  free  and  slave, 
above  the  age  of  sixteen  years  are  declared  to  be  ((taxables/' 
and  upon  each  person  thus  declared  to  be  a  taxable,  the  com- 
missioners of  the  several  county  courts  were  directed  to  levy 
a  specific  sum,  to  be  paid  in  money  or  tobacco,  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  Government.  And  this  Act,  providing  for  the 
levying  of  taxes  by  the  poll,  continued  in  force  down  to  the 


178  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

Revolution.  Strange  as  it  may  seem  nowadays,  the  poll 
taxes,  to  which  we  have  referred,  were  the  only  direct  taxes 
levied  for  public  purposes  during  the  colonial  period.  Such 
taxes  thus  levied,  without  reference  to  the  ability  or  the 
means  of  the  "taxable"  to  pay  them,  must  necessarily  have 
been,  in  many  cases,  burdensome  and  oppressive,  and  it 
was  such  levying  of  taxes  by  the  poll  that  the  Constitution 
of  1776  denounced  as  being  "grievous  and  oppressive,"  and 
which  ought  to  be  "abolished"    Short  v.  State,  80  Md.  398. 

Time  at  Which  Corporate  Real  Estate  May  be  Assessed — 
Degree   of  Completion   of  Building  Required  by  Law. 

This  is  an  appeal  from  an  order  of  the  Baltimore  City  Court 
dismissing  a  petition  filed  by  the  appellant  which  sought  to 
have  the  assessment  of  its  dry  dock  ($200,000)  stricken  from 
the  tax  books.  The  assessment  was  made  on  the  fith  of 
January  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  after  a  hearing  on  Decem- 
ber 23d.  Appellants  contended  that  the  assessment  was  il- 
legal because  it  was  made  after  the  first  day  of  October 
(City  Charter,  sec.  171).  The  first  day  of  October  is  the 
day  on  which  the  tax  books  are  expected  to  be  ready  for  the1 
ensuing  year.  But  Section  171  also  provides  that  property 
which  has  "escaped"  or  been  "omitted"  shall  be  valued  and 
assessed  after  the  first  of  October  "whenever  the  same  may 
be  discovered."  It  is  desirable  and  important  that  as  far  as 
possible  the  assessable  basis  be  known  and  determined  by 
the  day  contemplated  by  the  charter.  But  if  there  be  prop- 
erty which  is  taxable,  but  is  not  on  the  assessment  books 
on  that  day,  it  ought  not  to  escape  taxation  merely  because 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  179 

it  had  not  been  reported  by  the  owner,  or  had  been  over- 
looked by  the  tax  officers.  Assuming  that  this  dock  was  in 
a  condition  that  made  it  taxable  on  October  1st,  we  think 
it  is  clear  that  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  was  right  in  assessing 
it.    Skinner  Dry  Dock  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  96  Md.  39. 

The  dock  was  practically  completed  on  October  1st  with 
the  exception  of  the  gate  and  some  dredging  which  was 
necessary  to  be  done  before  using  it.  If  it  was  not  assessable 
at  that  time  by  reason  of  what  was  yet  to  be  done,  then  it 
would  be  a  great  temptation  for  property  owners  to  postpone 
making  some  small  part  of  the  improvement  until  after  Oc- 
tober 1st.  These  taxes  were  for  1902,  and  for  some  weeks 
before  the  beginning  of  that  year  the  dock  was  in  actual  use. 
Indeed,  with  the  exception  of  the  gate,  the  dock  proper  was 
apparently  complete  before  the  1st  of  October.  In  our 
opinion  the  dock  was  substantially  completed  or  so  nearly  so 
as  to  make  it  a  subject  for  taxation  on  October  1st.    Ibid. 

In  addition  to  this  view,  corporations  are  required,  under 
Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  141,  to  furnish  to  the  County  Com- 
missioners or  Appeal  Tax  Court,  before  the  first  day  of 
March,  a  true  statement  of  their  real  property,  as  of  January 
1st  "and  such  real  property  shall  be  valued  and  assessed  by 
said  County  Commissioners  and  Appeal  Tax  Court  respec- 
tively to  the"  Company,  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  then 
assessing  the  shares  of  stock  as  provided  for  by  law.  Such 
being  the  law  applicable  to  corporations,  how  could  the  ap- 
pellant escape  taxation  on  this  dry  dock  for  1902,  even  if  it 
is  conceded  that  it  was  not  in  a  condition  on  October  1st  to 


180  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

be  taxed  ?  It  could  .then  have  been  valued  and  assessed  by 
the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  if  not  previously  assessed,  for  if  that 
were  not  so  a  corporation  could  readily  avoid  the  payment 
of  taxes  which  it  justly  owed.  Under  Code,  Art.  81, 
sec.  141 ,  improvements  completed  before  January  1st  on  the 
real  estate  of  corporations  in  Baltimore  City  are  taxable 
for  the  ensuing  year,  though  not  assessed  to  the  corpora- 
tion on  October  1st  of  the  preceding  year.    Ibid. 

Time  of  Assessment  of  the  Shares  of  Domestic  Corpora- 
tions as  of  January  1st.  Section  150,  of  Article  81,  of 
the  Code,  requires  every  state  corporation  to  report  to  the 
State  Tax  Commissioner  by  the  15th  of  March  in  each  year 
a  correct  statement  of  the  number  of  shares  of  capital  stock 
in  such  corporation,  and  the  par  value  of  each  share  with 
such  information  in  regard  to  the  value  of  the  same  as 
may  be  in  possession  of  the  officers  of  the  corporation  as  of 
the  1st  day  of  January,  and  the  Commissioner  shall  by  the 
15th  of  May  assess  the  shares  as  of  the  1st  of  January  pre- 
ceeding  and  levy  the  State  tax  thereon.  The  State  Tax 
Commissioner  shall  before  the  1st  of  March  furnish  to  the 
County  Commissioners  and  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Balti- 
more City  a  list  of  the  stockholders  residing  in  their  respec- 
tive districts  and  the  number  of  shares  owned  by  each.  It 
is  also  provided  that  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  shall  cer- 
tify his  valuations  to  the  tax  officials  of  the  various  coun- 
ties and  cities  in  the  State.  The  provisions  of  Article  81 
leave  no  doubt  that  the  shares  of  stock  in  all  Maryland 
corporations  are  assessable  to  the  persons  who  owned  the 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  181 

shares  on  January  1st,  and  that  the  information  which  said 
Article  requires  from  the  officers  of  corporations  must  re- 
late to  the  ownership  of  each  share  as  of  January  1st.  In 
this  case  a  number  of  shares  that  were  owned  by  non-resi- 
dents on  January  1,  1905,  were  transferred  to  a  corporation 
in  Queen  Anne's  County;  these  shares  were  properly  as- 
sessed and  were  payable  in  Baltimore  O'ty  for  that  year. 
Baltimore  v.  Chester  River  Steamboat  Company,  103  Md. 
408. 

True  Test  of  Taxable  Value.  The  difference  between  a 
security  that  produces  interest  and  one  that  does  not,  and 
the  reason  for  the  taxation  of  the  one  and  the  exemption  of 
the  other,  are  both  clear  and  obvious.  The  true  test  of  a 
taxable  value  is  the  producing  value  to  the  owner.  Simpson 
v.  Hopkins,  82  Md.  490. 

Trust  Estates  Must  be  Assessed  at  Residence  of  Bene- 
ficial Owner.  The  Safe  Deposit  &  Trust  Company  had 
in  its  posession  securities  to  the  value  of  $28,890  in  trust  for 
Noah  Walker,  a  resident  of  Baltimore  County,  and  $22,930 
in  trust  for  Emily  R.  Hoff,  also  a  resident  of  Baltimore 
County,  against  both  of  which  assessments  were  levied  by  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore.  The  appellee  protested 
upon  the  ground  that  under  the  Act  of  1902,  Chap.  486,  it 
was  taxable  in  Baltimore  County.  An  appeal  was  taken 
to  the  City  Court  and  the  assessment  was  abated,  whereupon 
the  Appeal  Tax  Court  appealed.  The  appellant  contended 
that  the  Act  of  1890  conflicted  with  Article  15  of  the  Bill 


> 


182  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

of  Rights.  Held  that  the  Legislature  did  not  exceed  its 
power  over  the  subject  of  taxation  or  violate  any  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  or  Constitution  in  providing 
that  personal  property  of  the  kind  involved  in  this  case, 
shall  for  purposes  of  assessment  and  taxation,  be  treated  as 
belonging  to  the  substantial  owners  and  not  to  its  technical 
holder.  Baltimore  v.  Safe  Deposit  &  Trust  Company,  97 
Md.  664. 

When  the  personal  property  held  in  trust  consists  of  shares 
of  stock  in  corporations  of  this  State  the  Act  of  1902,  Chap. 
406,  being  in  pari  materia  with  the  existing  law  requiring  the 
corporation  to  pay  the  taxes  on  its  stock  for  the  stockholder, 
fhe  two  laws  should  be  construed  together,  and  the  residence 
of  the  cestui  que  trust  be  treated  as  the  situs  for  taxation, 
and  the  taxes  be  paid  by  the  corporation  in  accordance  with 
the  system  in  force  for  the  payment  of  such  taxes.    Ibid. 

Trustee  for  Creditors.  A  trustee  for  creditors  is  re- 
quired to  pay  by  way  of  preference  only  the  taxes  due  on 
the  property  of  the  debtor  taken  possession  of  or  sold  by 
him,  and  not  all  taxes  due  by  the  debtor,  or  taxes  on  property 
which  he  does  not  accept  for  the  estate.  Parlett  v.  Dugan,  85 
Md.  407. 

Turnpikes  as  Boundaries.  A  turnpike  may  be  used  as  a 
boundary  in  the  reclassification  of  property  in  the  Annex 
$or  taxation  purposes.    Coulston  v.  Baltimore,  109  Md.  271. 

Turnpikes  as  Public  Streets.  Turnpikes  upon  which 
property  in  the  Annex  fronts,  on  which  no  tolls  are  paid  in 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  183 

passing  from  such  property  to  the  old  city  limits,  are  to  be 
considered  as  public  streets.  Baltimore  v.  Knell,  111  Md. 
583. 

Trustees  Living  in  Different  Counties.  In  this  case  prop- 
erty was  held  by  two  trustees,  one  living  in  Baltimore 
City  and  one  in  Baltimore  County.  This  Court,  in  Latrobe 
v.  Baltimore,  19  Md.  13,  settled  the  doctrine  that  the  resi- 
dence of  the  trustee  is  the  situs  for  taxation  upon  property. 
The  tax  laws  of  the  State  do  not  expressly  provide  for  such 
a  case  as  this,  and  our  decision  must  be  made  to  rest  upon 
what  we  regard  to  be  equity  and  right.  The  property  is 
certainly  not  liable  to  a  double  tax.  We  think  it  should  be 
taxed,  one-half  as  of  the  place  of  residence  of  each  trustee, 
that  is  one-half  should  be  taxed  to  the  trustee  in  Baltimore 
City  and  one-half  to  the  trustee  in  Baltimore  County.  Balti- 
more v.  Stirling,  29  Md.  49. 

Unissued  Shares  of  Stock  not  Liable  to  Assessment. 

The  Consumers'  Ice  Company  was  assessed  by  the  State 
Tax  Commissioner  on  its  capital  stock  of  4,000  shares, 
though  the  Company  informed  him  that  only  3,277  shares 
had  been  issued.  *  *  When  the  statute  directs  the  Tax 
Commissioner  to  "assess  for  state  purposes  the  shares  of 
capital  stock  in  all  incorporated  institutions  or  companies" 
it  evidently  means  shares  of  stock  that  are  in  existence.  If 
they  have  no  existence  they  have  no  value.  Those  that  are 
already  issued  may  possibly  have  some  additional  value 
given  them  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  o.thers  can  be  issued, 


184  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

but  that  can  be  taken  into  consideration  when  the  former 
are  assessed.  The  State  can  lose  nothing  by  this  construc- 
tion.. The  State  Tax  Commissioner  had  no  authority  to  as- 
sess the  723  shares  of  this  company  which  had  not  been 
issued.    Consumers'  Ice  Co.  v.  State,  82  Md.  132. 

Vessel  Assessments.  All  interests,  shares  or  proportions 
owned  by  residents  of  this  State  in  all  ships  or  other  vessels 
whether  such  ships  or  other  vessels  be  in  or  out  of  port  are 
and  shall  be  valued  and  assessed  for  the  purpose  of  State, 
county  and  municipal  taxation  to  the  respective  owners 
thereof,  in  the  county  or  city  in  the  State  in  which  said 
owners  may,  respectively,  reside,  and  such  respective  owners 
shall  pay  the  taxes  thereon.    Code  1911,  Art.  81,  sec.  2. 

The  interest  of  a  citizen  of  Maryland  and  resident  of 
Baltimore  in  a  vessel  engaged  in  foreign  commerce  regis- 
tered, as  a  vessel  of  the  United  States,  Baltimore  being  the 
home  port  of  the  vessel  and  the  domicile  of  its  directing  and 
managing  owners,  is  taxable  by  the  municipality.  Such  tax 
is  not  in  conflict  with  the  Federal  Constitution.  Gunther  v. 
Baltimore,  55  Md.  458;  Howell  v.  State,  3  Gill,  16;  Hooper 
v.  Baltimore,  12  Md.  471. 

A  vessel  has  no  situs  apart  from  the  domicile  of  the  owner. 
Hooper  v.  Baltimore,  12  Md.  464. 

The  situs  of  "floating  property,"  like  rolling  stock,  etc.,  is 
at  the  residence  of  the  owners.  Hopkins  v.  Baker,  78  Md. 
371. 


Maryiand  Tax  Digest.  185 

Vessels  enrolled  in  New  York  and  engaged  in  inter-com- 
merce, but  permanently  in  Virginia,  are  taxable  in  Virginia. 
Old  Dominion  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Virginia,  198  U.  S.  299. 

The  registration  district  of  which  Baltimore  is  the  port  of 
entry  is  not,  under  the  laws  of  Congress,  limited  to  Baltimore 
City,  and  the  mere  fact  that  the  vessel  is  registered  in  the 
Baltimore  custom  house  does  not  give  the  city  the  right  to 
tax  her.    Hooper  v.  Baltimore,  2  Md.  472. 

The  Act  of  1841,  Chap.  23,  taxing  all  ships  and  other  ves- 
sels "whether  in  or  out  of  port"  was  a  valid  and  constitu- 
tional exercise  of  power  by  the  State.  Howell  v.  State,  3 
Gill,  10. 

4141,  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.,  1792,  prescribes  the  duty  of 
registry  "by  the  collector  of  that  collection  district  which 
includes  the  port  to  which  such  vessel  shall  belong  at  the 
time  of  her  registry." 

Vessels  are  taxable  at  the  place  of  registry.  See  Morgan 
v.  Parham  16  Wall,  472. 

When  the  owner  (of  a  vessel)  is  domiciled  without  the 
State  and  the  property  is  in  the  possession,  or  in  the  custody 
and  control  of  an  agent  or  other  person  within  the  State 
it  becomes  taxable  at  the  domicile  of  the  person  having 
possession  thereof.     Welty  on  Assessment,  sec.  43. 

The  taxable  situs  of  ships  at  sea  is  at  the  residence  of  the 
owner.     Thompson  on  Corporations,  sec.  8096. 


186  Maryland  Tax  Digest. 

United  Railways  Park  Tax  a  Substitute  for  Taxation 
on  Easement  in  Public  Streets.  The  principal  question 
presented  by  this  appeal  is  whether  the  street  easements  used 
and  occupied  by  the  appellant  in  the  City  of  Baltimore  are 
subject  to  valuation  and  assessment  by  the  Appeal  tax  Court 
of  that  city,  for  the  purposes  of  taxation,  under  the  ex- 
isting laws  of  this  State.  *  *  The  appellant  contends  that 
the  tax  of  nine  per  cent,  on  its  gross  receipts  imposed  by  the 
Act  of  1892,  Chap.  279,  is  in  lieu  of  and  substitution  for  any 
other  tax  on  its  intangible  property,  whether  it  be  termed 
franchise  or  easement.    *    *    *    * 

What  appellant  claims  is  not  exemption  but  exoneration. 
It  does  not  contend  that  the  State  has  surrendered  its  right 
to  further  tax  the  easements  in  question,  but  having  taxed 
them  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  Act  of  1882,  further 
legislative  action  is  necessary  before  an  additional  burden  of 
taxation  can  be  lawfully  imposed  upon  them.  *  *  When  we 
reflect  that  such  tax  reaches  every  nook  and  corner  of  value 
in  the  easements  as  well  as  in  the  franchises  of  the  cor- 
poration ;  that  the  amount  of  the  tax  is  equivalent  to  a  direct 
property  tax  on  an  assessment  of  over  $20,000,000;  that 
there  could  have  scarcely  been  a  thought  in  the  legislative 
mind  at  that  time  (1882)  of  taking  the  easement  separately 
as  property  distinguished  from  the  franchise,  and  that  in 
fact  no  effort  was  made  to  tax  easements  for  a  period  of 
twenty-five  years  thereafter,  we  think  the  inference  is  irre- 
sistible that  the  Legislature  did  not  then  contemplate  a  tax 
on  the  easements  enjoyed  by  the  street  car  companies  now 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  187 

composing  the  appellant,  in  addition  to  the  gross  receipts 
tax  which  by  that  Act  it  imposed  upon  them.  *  *  *  * 

We  hold,  therefore,  that  as  to  the  easements  enjoyed  by 
the  appellant  upon  which  the  park  tax  is  earned  and  paid,  no 
further  assessment  thereon  for  the  purpose  of  taxation  can 
be  lawfully  made  without  express  legislative  authority,  and 
that  consequently  the  assessment  of  them  by  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court  is  illegal  and  void.  As  to  the  fourteen  miles  of  ease- 
ments of  appellant  in  the  City  of  Baltimore  located  on  turn- 
pikes and  private  ways,  and  upon  which  no  gross  receipts 
tax  is  paid,  we  think  these  are  subject  to  taxation  by  the  Ap- 
peal Tax  Court.  United  Railways  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  111 
Md.  264. 

Validity  of  a  Verbal  Order  of  County  Commissioners 
to  the  Collector  to  Pay  a  Sum  of  Money.  The  Commis- 
sioners of  Charles  County  passed  a  verbal  order  instructing 
the  Collector  to  pay  a  sum  of  money  to  a  claimant,  and 
though  the  clerk  to  the  Commissioners  failed  to  make  an 
entry  of  the  order,  he  directed  the  Collector  to  pay  the 
money ;  the  failure  to  make  a  proper  entry  on  the  records  did 
not  invalidate  the  order.  When  the  Collector,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, failed  to  pay  the  money  as  directed,  but  mis- 
appropriated it,  the  sureties  on  his  bond  are  liable  for 
the  amount.  Fidelity  and  Deposit  Co.  v.  Co.  Com'rs.  Charles 
County,  98  Md.  162. 

Valuation    of    Shares    by    Tax    Commissioner    Final. 
The  decision  of  the  Board  of  Appeal  in  reviewing  the 


188  Maryiand  Tax  Digest. 

valuation  of  the  shares  of  stock  by  the  State  Tax  Commis- 
sioner is  final  as  to  the  question  of  valuation.  Even  if  there 
was  error  in  the  valuation  the  Courts  cannot  interfere  un- 
less it  is  shown  that  the  property  assessed  is  exempt  under 
the  statute.  Salisbury  Building  Asso.  v.  Wicomico  County, 
86  Md.  615. 

Ward's  Property  in  Possession  of  Foreign  Guardian. 

Personal  property  belonging  to  a  ward,  which  is  in  posses- 
sion of  a  guardian  residing  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
though  her  husband  may  have  a  residence  in  this  State,  is 
not  taxable  in  this  State.    Kinehart  v.  Howard,  90  M'd.  1. 

Western  Maryland  R.  R.  Rolling  Stock  Assessable  in 
Baltimore.  As  to  the  assessment  of  the  rolling  stock  of  the 
Western  Maryland  Railroad,  such  as  engines,  cars,  etc.,  and 
also  the  tracks  within  the  eighth  ward  of  Baltimore  City,  we 
think  there  was  no  error  in  the  assessment  with  respect  to  the 
locality  of  this  property.  It  is  contended  by  the  Company 
that  it  is  entitled  to  exemption  from  assessment,  in  the  City 
of  Baltimore,  in  respect  to  at  least  a  part  of  its  rolling  stock; 
that  such  rolling  stock  should  be  treated  as  part  of  the  road, 
and  its  value  distributed,  pro  rata  in  the  assessments,  along 
its  entire  line.  But  in  this  we  do  not  agree.  It  is  conceded 
that  the  principal  business  office  and  also  the  principal  sta- 
tion of  the  Company  are  located  in  the  eighth  ward  of  the 
city,  and  that  must  be  taken  as  the  place  of  the  domicile  of 
the  Company  for  purposes  of  taxation.  Whether  we  re- 
gard such  rolling  stock  as  belonging  to  one  species  of  prop- 


Maryland  Tax  Digest.  189 

erty  or  the  other  (real  or  personal),  the  entire  road  being 
within  the  limits  of  the  State,  the  only  practical  place  for  as- 
sessment, in  the  absence  of  some  positive  rule  of  distribution 
and  apportionment  prescribed  by  the  Legislature,  is  the  place 
of  the  domicile  of  the  Company.  Burroughs  on  Taxation, 
186,  and  the  cases  there  cited.  Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  W.  M. 
R.  R.  Co.,  50  Md.  274. 

The  Western  Maryland  R.  R.  Co.  is  held  to  be  the  sub- 
stantial owner  of  the  leasehold  interest  in  real  estate,  which 
it  possesses  and  uses  under  an  ordinance  of  Baltimore  City 
providing  for  a  formal  lease  of  such  property  for  ninety- 
nine  years,  said  lease  not  having  been  executed,  though  the 
city  was  willing  to  execute  it,  and  assessable  for  the  value 
of  the  leasehold.    Ibid. 


APPENDIX 


THE  STATE  TAX  COMMISSION 


AN  ACT  TO  EQUALIZE  ASSESSMENTS 
THROUGHOUT  MARYLAND. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  841. 

AN  ACT  to  create  a  State  Tax  Commission  to  provide  for 
the  equalization  of  assessments  throughout  the  State  of 
Maryland,  and  to  provide  for  the  review  of  all  property 
for  purposes  of  assessment  at  least  once  in  every  five 
years ;  to  define  the  duties  and  other  powers  of  the  State 
Tax  Commission ;  to  provide  for  procedure  and  appeals 
in  cases  affecting  taxation ;  to  provide  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  supervisor  of  assessments  in  each  County  and 
the  City  of  Baltimore ;  to  provide  for  the  payment  of 
the  salary  of  the  supervisor  of  each  County  and  Balti- 
more City;  and  to  provide  for  the  abolishing  of  the 
office  of  State  Tax  Commissioner,  and  to  substitute  the 
State  Tax  Commission  for  the  State  Tax  Commissioner, 
and  to  appropriate  a  sum  of  money  annually  to  pay  the 
salaries  and  expenses  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  by 
adding  twelve  Sections  to  Article  81,  title  "Taxation/* 
of  the  Code  of  Public  General  Laws,  as  set  out  in  the 
Code  of  1912. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  bv  the  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland,  That  Article  81,  title~"Taxation,"  of  the  Code  of 
Public  General  Laws  as  set  out  in  the  Code  of  1912,  be  and 
the  same  is  hereby  amended  by  adding  twelve  Sections  to 
immediately  follow  Section  232,  and  to  be  known  as  Sections 


192  Appendix 

233,  234,  235  236,  237,  238,   239,  240,  241,   242,  243  and 
244,  and  to  be  as  follows : 

Sec.  233.  There  is  hereby  created  a  Commission  to  be 
designated  as  State  Tax  Commission  of  Maryland  composed 
of  three  persons  who  shall  be  resident  taxpayers  of  the  State 
and  qualified  voters  thereof  and  not  more  than  two  of  whom 
shall  be  of  the  same  political  party.  One  of  said  Com- 
missioners shall  be  a  resident  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  one 
a  resident  of  the  Counties  of  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland, 
and  the  other  a  resident  of  the  Counties  of  the  Western 
Shore  of  Maryland.  The  term  of  each  of  the  three  members 
shall  be  six  years  and  until  his  successor  qualifies  and  shall 
commence  on  the  first  "Monday  of  June  next  ensuing  his 
appointment;  except  that  one  of  the  Commissioners  named 
in  this  Act  shall  serve  for  two  vears,  one  for  four  vears, 
and  one  for  six  years,  and  if  for  any  reason  the  term  of 
six  years  shall  be  held  unconstitutional  then  the  term  of  each 
shall  be  two  years.  The  present  Commission  created  by  this 
Act  shall  be  Oscar  Leser,  who  shall  serve  for  two  years, 
Lewin  W.  Wickes,  who  shall  serve  for  four  years,  and  Ar- 
thur P.  Gorman,  Jr.,  who  shall  serve  for  six  years  and  who 
shall  be  Chairman  of  said  Commission  during  his  term, 
after  which  time  the  chairman  of  said  Commision  shall  be 
designated  by  the  Governor  of  the  State,  and  all  subsequent 
appointments  shall  be  so  made  that  not  more  than  two  Com- 
missioners shall  at  any  time  be  of  the  same  political  party. 
Each  Commissioner  shall  receive  a  salary  of  Three  Thous- 
and dollars  ($3,000)  per  annum,  payable,  out  of  the  State 
Treasury  by  the  State  of  Maryland.  The  Chairman  of  said 
Commission  shall  also  receive  the  sum  of  Three  Thousand 
Dollars  per  annum  which  shall  be  paid  out  of  its  funds  by 
the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore,  to  said  Chairman 
of  said  Commission,  as  an  employee  of  said  municipal  cor- 
poration ;  and  each  of  the  other  two  Commissioners  shall 
receive  in  addition  to  said  Three  Thousand  Dollars  per 
annum  aforesaid  the  sum  of  Two  Thousand  Dollars  per 
annum  which  shall  be  paid  out  of  its  funds  by  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council  of  Baltimore  to  each  of  said  other  two 
Commissioners  as  employees  of  said  municipal  corporation ; 


Appendix  193 

and  before  entering  upon  office  he  shall  take  the  oath  pre- 
scribed by  the  Constitution.  In  case  of  any  vacancy  the 
Governor  shall  appoint  a  competent  person  to  fill  the  same, 
subject  to  the  limitations  of  appointment  contained  in  this 
Act,  and  the  Governor  shall  appoint  one  Commissioner  every 
two  years  as  the  term  of  the  Commission  named  in  this  Act 
may  expire,  subject  to  the  limitations  hereinbefore  men- 
tioned. The  State  Tax  Commission  immediately  after  its 
organization  shall  appoint  a  Secretary  to  serve  at  the  pleas- 
ure of  the  State  Tax  Commission,  who  shall  receive  a 
salary  of  Three  Thousand  Dollars  ($3,000)  per  annum, 
payable  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and 
they  shall  also  have  the  power  to  employ  such  others  clerks 
and  stenographers  as  the  Commission  may  deem  necessary, 
and  the  Commission  shall  have  the  power  to  prescribe  their 
duties  and  fix  their  compensation  and  the  salaries  of  such 
employees  shall  be  payable  out  of  the  State  Treasury  of  the 
State  of  Maryland  as  other  State  employees  are  now  paid. 
The  main  office  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  shall  be  in 
Baltimore  City.  The  Commission  may  appoint  an  attorney 
at  law  of  the  State  of  Maryland  to  be  and  act  as  the  general 
counsel  of  said  Commission,  whose  salary  shall  be  fixed  by 
said  Commission. 

234.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  State  Tax  Commission 
and  it  shall  have  power  and  authority — 

(1)  To  have  general  supervision  over  the  administra- 
tion of  the  assessment  and  tax  laws  of  the  State. 

(2)  To  have  general  supervision  over  all  supervisors  of 
assessments  and  to  have  the  final  determination  of  assess- 
ments of  all  property  in  all  the  Counties,  Cities,  Towns  and 
Villages  of  the  State,  to  the  end  that  all  taxable  property 
shall  be  placed  upon  the  assessment  books  and  equalized 
between  persons,  firms  and  corporations  in  all  the  Counties, 
Districts,  Cities,  Towns  and  Villages  of  the  State,  so  that 
all  persons,  firms  and  corporations  shall  be  assessed  alike 
for  like  kinds  of  property.  In  case  any  property  which 
under  the  law  is  subject  to  taxation  has  not  been  assessed, 
such  property  may  be  placed  on  the  books  at  any  time  and 
shall  be  subject  to  taxation   for  the  current  and  previous 


194  Appendix 

years,  not  exceeding  four  years  in  all,  in  the  same  manner 
as  other  property  is  subject  to  taxation. 

(3)  To  establish  the  form  of  the  reports  of  assessment, 
assessment  books  and  collection  books,  and  of  schedules, 
notices  and  other  papers,  and  forms  for  financial  and 
statistical  reports  of  County  Commissioners  and  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  to  the  State  Tax  Commission. 
The  State  Tax  Commission  is  empowered  to  require  all 
these  officials  to  use  all  forms  furnished  or  prescribed  by 
the  State  Tax  Commission,  and  shall  have  power  to  examine 
all  books  of  local  governing  bodies,  assessing  officials  and 
tax  collectors. 

(4)  To  provide  for  a  uniform  system  of  accounts  to  be 
used  by  all  collectors  of  State  taxes  and  to  require  the  use 
thereof. 

(5)  To  formulate,  whenever  the  Commission  shall  deem 
it  practicable,  standards  or  units  for  the  assessment  of 
various  kinds  of  property,  and  to  issue  instructions  to  local 
supervisors  of  assessments  in  regard  thereto  and  to  require 
the  use  thereof.  To  confer  with  County  Commissioners  and 
the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City,  and  visit  each 
County  as  often  as  necessary. 

(6)  To  enforce  and  execute  a  continuing  method  of  as- 
sessment and  to  require  that  all  property  in  the  State  be 
reviewed  for  assessment  at  least  once  in  every  five  years. 

(7)  To  require  individuals,  firms  and  corporations  to 
furnish  complete  information  as  to  ownership  of  all  property 
taxable  or  exempt,  and  as  to  all  facts  relative  to  the  value 
thereof. 

(8)  To  investigate  at  any  time,  on  its  own  initiative, 
assessments  against  any  or  all  properties  or  assessments  in 
any  County,  District,  City,  Town  or  Village. 

(9)  To  inquire  into  the  provisions  of  the  law  of  other 
States  and  jurisdictions  regarding  jurisdiction  and  situs  of 
property  for  purpose  of  taxation ;  to  confer  with  Tax  Com- 
missioners of  other  States  regarding  the  most  effectual  and 
equitable  methods  of  assessment,  and  particularly  regarding 
the  best  methods  of  reaching  all  property  and  avoiding  con- 
flicts and  duplication  of  taxation  of  the  same  property,  and 


Appendix  195 

to  recommend  to  the  Legislature  such  measures  as  will  tend 
to  bring  about  uniformity  of  methods  of  assessment  and 
harmony  and  co-operation  between  the  different  States  and 
jurisdictions  in  matters  of  taxation. 

(10)  To  provide  for  a  system  for  inspection  of  State 
licenses  and  to  require  the  payment  of  the  proper  fees  fixed 
by  law  therefor. 

(11)  To  confer  with  the-  Governor,  Comptroller  and 
Treasurer  of  the  State  as  to  the  administration  of  the  tax 
laws,  and  to  report  biannually  to  the  General  Assembly  its 
proceedings  and  recommendations. 

235.  In  each  County  of  the  State  and  in  Baltimore  City 
there  shall  be  a  supervisor  of  assessments,  who  shall  be  a 
resident  thereof,  and  shall  be  appointed  by  the  State  Tax 
Commission  from  a  list  of  five  persons  submitted  to  the 
State  Tax  Commission  by  the  County  Commissioners  of  each 
County,  and  by  the  Mayor  of  Baltimore  City  in  case  of  the 
supervisor  of  Baltimore  City,  who  shall  be  removable  at 
any  time  by  the  State  Tax  Commission  for  incompetency 
or  cause.  He  shall  hold  no  other  public  office  or  profit.  In 
case  the  County  Commissioners  of  any  Countv  or  Mayor 
of  Baltimore  City  shall  fail  to  furnish  such  a  list  within 
twenty  days'  notice  (after  being  requested  so  to  do),  the 
State  Tax  Commission  shall  have  power  to  fill  such  office 
immediately  after  the  expiration  of  such  time. 

The  supervisor  of  assessments  in  each  County  shall  have 
general  supervision  over  assessment  of  all  property  in  the 
County.  He  shall  not  be  required  to  make  assessments 
which  shall  be  made  by  the  County  Commissioners,  or  other 
proper  authorities  as  now  required  by  law,  but  he  shall  have 
power  and  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  appeal  to  the  State  Tax 
Commission  from  any  and  all  assessments  or  rulings  which 
he  shall  consider  improper.  He  shall  visit  every  district 
at  frequent  intervals,  and  obtain  all  necessary  data  and 
information,  keep  posted  on  sales  in  the  County  and  condi- 
tions attending  said  sales,  and  whenever  possible  shall  report 
the  sales  and  consideration  of  all  transactions  within  twenty 
days  to  the  State  Tax  Commission  and  the  County  Com- 
missioners.    From  these  reports  and  all  evidence  obtainable, 


196  Appendix 


it  shall  be  determined  by  the  respective  County  Com- 
missioners whether  the  assessment  against  any  property  or 
whether  any  unit  of  assessment  values  used  in  any  district 
or  County  shall  be  changed,  and  in  case  the  data  submitted 
is  not  satisfactory  either  to  the  State  Tax  Commission  or 
to  the  County  Commissioners,  either  shall  have  the  power  to 
obtain  additional  data,  and  in  case  the  assessment  so  de- 
termined upon  is  not  satisfactory,  the  State  Tax  Commission 
or  the  County  Commissioners  shall  order  a  new  valuation. 

236.  The  supervisor  of  assessments  of  Baltimore  City 
shall  have  access  to  the  assessment  books  of  Baltimore  City, 
and  all  records  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City, 
and  to  returns  of  all  assessments  made  by  assessors.  He 
shall  have  authority  to  inquire  into  the  assessment  of  any 
or  all  properties  and  to  report  the  results  of  any  investiga- 
tions to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  and  to  the 
State  Tax  Commission,  and  to  recommend  such  changes  as 
he  may  deem  proper,  and  he  shall  have  power  to  appeal  to 
the  State  Tax  Commission  from  any  assessment  or  ruling 
of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court. 

Upon  any  investigation  which  shall  prima  facie  establish 
inequality  of  valuation  of  any  part  of  Baltimore  City  or 
any  class  or  kind  of  property,  he  shall  immediately  report 
such  investigation  with  recommendations  to  the  State  Tax 
Commission,  which  shall  have  the  power  to  order  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  to  reassess  such  property  and  to  have  the  same 
entered  on  the  assessment  books. 

237.  In  case  of  failure  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  to 
agree  upon  any  assessment  with  the  County  Commissioners 
of  any  County,  or  with  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore 
City,  as  the  case  may  be,  then  and  in  that  case  the  determi- 
nation of  the  State  Tax  Commission  shall  prevail.  Nothing 
herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  limit  the  power  of  the 
State  Tax  Commission  to  make  an  investigation  of  assess- 
ments upon  its  own  initiative  in  any  part  of  the  State. 

238.  Any  taxpayer,  taxpayers,  or  City,  Town  or  Village 
may  demand  a  hearing  before  the  County  Commissioners  or 
Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  as  to  the  assessment  of 
any  property  or  any  unit  of  tax  value,  and  no  formal  pro- 


Appendix  l!>7 

ceedings  shall  be  required.  And  in  case  of  any  hearing,  the 
parties  may  file  data  and  information  showing  why  any  as- 
sessment is  deemed  erroneous,  and  the  County  Commis- 
sioners or  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  shall  hear 
and  determine  the  matter. 

Any  taxpayer,  taxpayers,  or  City,  Town  or  Village  having 
been  assessed  by  the  order  of  the  County  Commissioners  or 
Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City<  after  a  hearing  as 
hereinbefore  provided,  may  appeal  to  the  State  Tax  Com- 
mission;  or  the  supervisor  may  appeal  from  any  decision. 

There  shall  be  an  appeal  to  court  on  puestions  of  law 
only  from  decisions  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  to  the 
court  in  that  County  where  the  property  is  situated,  if  real 
estate  or  tangible  personal  property,  or  where  the  owner 
resides,  if  intangible  personal  property,  and  the  State  Tax 
Commission  is  empowered  to  participate  in  any  proceeding 
in  any  court  wherein  any  assessment  or  taxation  question  is 
involved. 

239.  The  supervisors  of  assessments  shall  confer  fre- 
quently with  the  State  Tax  Commission,  and  submit  ques- 
tions for  determination  to  that  Commission,  and  shall  re- 
ceive instructions  for  their  guidance  in  the  supervision  of 
the  valuation  and  assessment  of  properties,  both  real  and 
personal,  and  keep  constantly  informed  what  supervisors  of 
assessments  in  other  parts  of  the  State  are  doing. 

The  supervisors  shall  be  furnished  an  office  at  the  County 
seat  by  the  County  Commissioners  of  each  County,  and  by 
the  Mayor  in  Baltimore  City,  and  allowed  such  clerical  help 
as  the  County  Commissioners  or  Mayor  of  Baltimore  City, 
respectively,  shall  determine ;  and  the  State  Tax  Commission 
shall  determine,  by  a  general  and  uniform  rule,  what  data 
and  information,  if  any,  is  not  open  for  public  inspection. 
This  Act  is  not  intended  to  impose  any  limitation  on  the 
power  of  local  bodies  to  employ  assessors. 

240.  The  salary  of  the  supervisors  shall  be  paid  by  the 
several  Counties  and  shall  be  based  on  the  agregate  value  of 
property  subject  to  taxation  under  his  supervision.  In  those 
Counties  where  the  total  value  of  all  property  shall  not 
exceed   $5,000,000,   he   shall   receive   an   annual   salary   of 


198  Appendix 

$600.  If  the  aggregate  value  shall  be  over  $5;000,000  and 
less  than  $10,000,000  he  shall  receive  $800. 

If  over  $10,000,000  and  less  than    $20,000,000— $1,000. 

If  over    20,000,000  and  less  than      30,000,000—  1,200. 

If  over    30,000,000  and  less  than      50,000,000—  1,500. 

If  over    50,000,000  and  less  than      75,000,000—  1,800. 

If  over    75,000,000  and  less  than    100,000,000—  2,000. 

And  if  over  $100,000,000  he  shall  receive  $2,400. 

The  supervisor  in  Baltimore  City  shall  be  paid  $2,100. 

Such  salary  shall  be  payable  monthly  and  the  County 
Commissioners  of  each  County  and  the  "Mayor  and  City 
Council  of  Baltimore  are  hereby  directed  to  raise  such  sum 
annually  as  will  pay  said  salaries,  and  in  case  the  expendi- 
tures for  any  County  or  Baltimore  City  have  been  fully 
computed  at  the  time  that  this  Act  shall  take  effect,  then  the 
County  Commissioners  of  said  County  or  proper  officials 
in  Baltimore  City  shall  be  required  to  provide  in  the  next 
levy  for  the  payment  of  the  salary  from  the  date  of  the 
supervisor  taking  office. 

241.  The  State  Tax  Commission  shall  adopt  a  seal  and 
shall  keep  a  full  record  of  its  proceedings,  and  have  the 
power  to  make  rules,  orders  and  directions  as  it  may  deem 
necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  objects  of  this  Act.  It 
shall  have  power  also  to  provide  a  system  for  hearings  on 
petitions  filed  before  it,  and  shall  adopt  such  rules  of  pro- 
ceedings, manner  of  taking  testimony  and  argument  and 
such  regulations  in  regard  to  notices  of  assessment,  hearings 
and  appeals  as  it  may  deem  proper.  The  Commission,  or 
any  member  of  the  Commission,  shall  have  the  power  to 
compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses,  who  shall  be  notified 
through  the  respective  sheriffs'  offices,  or  by  any  appointee 
of  the  State  Tax  Commission,  and  said  Commission  or 
any  member  may  require  the  production  of  books  and  papers 
before  it  or  him,  and  may  examine  witnesses  or  cause  wit- 
nesses to  be  examined  under  oath,  which  any  of  its  members 
may  administer,  and  in  case  of  the  failure  of  any  person  or 
corporation  to  obey  any  order  of  the  said  Commission,  he, 
she  or  it  shall  be  held  liable  to  be  punished  as  for  contempt 
of  said  Commission,  as  hereinafter  provided.     The  Commis- 


Appendix  ,  199 

sion  may,  by  order,  as  occasion  shall  require,  refer  to  one  of 
its  members  the  duty  of  taking  testimony  in  any  matter 
pending  before  it  and  reporting  thereon  to  the  Commission, 
but  no  determination  shall  be  made  therein  except  by 
majority  vote.  The  Commission  may,  for  sufficient  reason, 
meet  in  any  part  of  the  State,  in  which  case  mileage  and 
other  reasonable  expenses  shall  be  allowed. 

24:2.  The  determination  of  any  matter  brought  before 
said  Commission  shall  be  evidenced  by  a  judgment  duly 
signed  by  at  least  two  of  its  members  and  filed  with  its  secre- 
tary ;  copies  thereof  duly  certified  by  said  secretary  and 
sealed  with  the  seal  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  shall  be 
evidence  in  any  cause  or  proceedings.  When  the  said  Com- 
mission shall  be  satisfied  that  any  person,  officer  or  corpora- 
tion has  failed  to  comply  with  its  said  judgment  or  order, 
although  fully  apprised  thereof,  it  shall  have  full  power 
upon  procedure  and  rules  adopted  by  it  to  attach  such  delin- 
quent for  contempt  and  to.  punish  accordingly  as  courts  of 
record  have  power  to  punish  for  contempt. 

243.  In  case  any  section  or  any  provision  of  this  Act 
shall  be  questioned  in  any  court  and  shall  be  held  unconsti- 
tutional or  invalid,  the  same  shall  not  be  held  to  affect  any 
other  section  or  provision  of  this  Act.  All  Acts  and  parts 
oi  Acts  inconsistent  herewith  shall  be  and  the  same  are 
hereby  repealed,  but  said  repeals  shall  not  revive  any  laws 
heretofore  repealed  nor  affect  any  pending  suits  or  proceed- 
ings as  to  the  valuation  and  assessment  of  property. 

244.  On  all  appeals  to  the  State  Tax  Commission  herein 
provided  all  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1908,  Chapter  1C>7, 
relating  to  appeals  to  the  Baltimore  City  Court,  and  of  the 
Act  of  1910,  Chapter  430,  relating  to  appeals  to  the  Circuit 
Courts  in  the  several  Counties  of  the  State,  shall  continue 
in  force  so  far  as  the  same  are  applicable  and  not  inconsis- 
tent with  the  other  provisions  of  this  Act,  except  only  that 
the  State  Tax  Commission  shall  be  substituted  for,  and 
exercise  the  functions  now  exercised  under  said  Acts  by 
said  Baltimore  City  Court  and  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the 
several  counties,  respectively.  Appeals  from  any  action 
of  the  State  Tax  Commission  to  court,  as  authorized  by  Sec- 


200  Appendix 

tion  238  hereof,  shall  be  taken  within  thirty  days  of  such 
action  by  petition  setting  forth  the  question  or  questions 
of  law  which  it  is  desired  by  the  appellant  to  review,  and 
notice  thereof  shall  be  given  by  summons  or  subpoena,  duly 
served  on  all  parties  directly  in  interest,  by  the  Sheriff  of 
the  county  or  city  in  which  said  appeal  is  filed,  and  shall  be 
heard  and  decided  by  the  court,  sitting  without  a  jury.  All 
appeals  to  court  in  Baltimore  City  shall  be  to  the  Baltimore 
City  Court,  and  there  shall  be  a  further  right  of  appeal  to 
the  Court  of  Appeals  from  any  decision  of  the  Baltimore 
City  Court  xor  of  the  circuit  courts  of  the  several  counties. 
Such  appeals  must  be  taken  within  ten  days  of  the  final 
judgment  or  determination  of  the  lower  court.  The  power 
to  assess  shall  in  all  cases  include  the  power  to  classify  for 
taxation,  and  the  power  to  review  an  assessment  on  appeal 
shall  in  all  cases  include  also  the  power  to  review  any  ques- 
tion of  classification  for  taxation. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  office  of 
State  Tax  Commissioner  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  abolished 
immediately  upon  the  qualification  of  the  Commission  here- 
by created  and  all  the  duties  imposed  upon  or  powers  grven 
by  existing  law  (or  by  any  Act  or  resolution  passed  at  the 
present  session  of  the  Legislature)  to  the  State  Tax  Com- 
missioner shall  devolve  upon  the  State  Tax  Commission ; 
and  wherever  any  duties  are  imposed  by  existing  law  (or  by 
any  Act  or  resolution  passed  at  the  present  session  of  the 
Legislature)  upon  persons  or  corporations  to  make  report 
to  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  or- to  perform  any  other  act 
or  thing  in  respect  to  his  orifice,  such  duties,  reports,  acts 
and  things  shall  be  made  and  performed  to  the  State  Tax 
Commission.  Wherever  the  State  Tax  Commissioner,  by 
virtue  of  his  office,  is  a  member  of  any  board,  committee  or 
other  similar  body,  the  chairman  of  the  State  Tax  Commis- 
sion shall  hereafter  serve  in  his  place,  provided  that  said 
repeal  shall  in  no  way  affect  the  validity  of  any  action  taken 
by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  before  this  Act  takes  effect. 

SE<X  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  sum  of 
$30,000  per  annum  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary 
to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the  salary  of  the  members  of 


Appendix  201 

the  Commission,  the  Secretary  and  employees  and  expenses 
thereof  is  hereby  appropriated  annually  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  into  effect  all  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act. 


THE  BANK  TAX  ACT. 


THE  LAW  REDUCING  THE  BANK  TAX  IN  MARY- 
LAND FROM  TWO  TO  ONE  PER  CENT. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  797. 

AN  ACT  to  add  two  additional  Sections  to  Article  81  of  the 
Code  of  Public  General  Laws  of  Maryland,  title  "Rev- 
enue and  Taxes,"  to  be  known  as  Section  153-A  and 
162- A,  as  contained  in  the  Code  of  1912,  and  to  thereby 
provide  a  method  for  the  assessment  and  taxation  of  the 
stock  of  banks  (State  and  National)  located  and  doing 
business  in  this  State,  and  fix  a  rate  of  taxation  for  all 
County,  City  and  Municipal  purposes  thereon. 

Sec.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land, That  the  following  two  additional  Sections  be  and  the 
same  are  hereby  added  to  Article  81  of  the  Code  of  Public 
General  Laws  of  Maryland,  title  "Revenue  and  Taxes,"  to 
be  known  as  Sections  153-A  and  162-A,  respectively,  and 
to  respectively  follow  Section  153  and  Section  162  in  said 
Article  as  contained  in  the  Code  of  1912,  which  new  Sec- 
tions shall  read  as  follows  : 

153-A.  In  making  the  annual  report  to  the  State  Tax 
Commissioner  provided  for  in  the  preceding  Section  of  this 
Article,  the  president,  cashier  or  other  chief  officer  of  every 
bank  (State  and  National),  located  and  doing  business  in 
this  State,  shall  expressly  state  in  such  report  the  amount  of 
the  capital  stock  paid  in,  the  amount  of  surplus,  and  the 
amount  of  undivided  profits,  together  with  such  other  infor- 
mation as  may  be  required  by  the  said  Commissioner  under 
the  provisions  of  the  preceding  Section. 


202  Appendix 

162-A.  The  State  Tax  Commissioner  shall  take  into  con- 
sideration, in  determining  the  taxable  values  of  the  shares  of 
stock  of  any  bank  (State  or  National),  located  and  doing 
business  in  this  State  (except  in  case  of  such  banks  as  are 
in  liquidation),  the  capital  stock  paid  in  its  surplus  and 
undivided  profits,  as  provided  for  in  Section  153-A  of  this 
Act  and  from  the  valuation  which  the  State  Tax  Com- 
missioner may  find,  shall  be  deducted  the  assessed  value  of 
the  real  property  belonging  to  and  assessed  to  such  bank, 
and  the  assessed  value  of  all  other  property  or  investments 
held  or  owned  by  banks  now  authorized  by  Chapter  124  of 
the  Acts  of  1908  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  to 
be  so  deducted,  and  the  remainder  shall  be  by  the  State  Tax 
Commissioner  divided  by  the  number  of  shares  of  such  capi- 
tal stock  outstanding  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the 
respective  taxable  value  of  each  share,  as  provided  in  the 
preceding  Section,  and  there  shall  be  paid  on  such  valuation 
the  regular  rate  of  taxation  for  State  purposes,  and  there 
shall  also  be  paid  on  such  valuation  one  per  cent  (and  no 
more)  in  all  for  all  County,  City  and  Municipal  taxation, 
which  said  tax  shall  be  distributed  among  the  different 
jurisdictions  entitled  to  tax  the  same  shares,  in  the  propor- 
tion which  the  rate  of  each  juridiction,  bears  to  the  aggre- 
gate of  the  rates  of  such  jurisdictions,  and  said  tax  shall 
Jbe  in  lieu  of  all  other  taxes  whatsoever,  for  County  and 
Municipal  purposes  upon  the  shares  of  stock  and  the  owners 
of  stocks  in  such  banks.  But  in  the  case  of  such  banks  as 
may  be  in  the  course  of  liquidation,  the  aggregate  value  of 
all  shares  thereof,  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  shall  be  de- 
termined by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  from  the  assets 
and  liabilities  thereof,  and  upon  such  valuation  of  such 
shares  so  determined,  the  regular  rate  of  taxation  for  State 
and  local  purposes,  shall  be  paid,  in  the  manner  provided 
In  this  Article.  Credits  by  reason  of  the  ownership  by  any 
such  bank  or  banks  of  the  Baltimore  City  Burnt  District 
Loan  Stock,  issued  under  Chapter  4fi8  of  the  Acts  of  1904, 
the  Water  Loan,  issued  under  Chapter  333  of  the  Acts  of 
1902,  and  the  Conduit  Loan,  issued  under  Chapter  246  of 
the  Acts  of  1902,  whether  heretofore  or  hereafter  issued, 


Appendix  203 

and  also  all  other  credits  authorized  and  provided  for  under 
said  Chapter  124  of  the  Acts  of  1908  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Maryland  shall  be  allowed  as  provided  for  in  said 
last  mentioned  Act,  but  shall  be  computed  on  the  basis  of 
the  rates  for  State,  County,  City  and  Municipal  taxation, 
respectively,  herein  prescribed;  no  such  credits,  however, 
shall  be  allowed  in  any  case  where  the  officer  making  such 
returns  for  such  bank  or  banks  shall  fail  to  state  in  such 
return  that  said  investments  are  owned  by  the  bank  of 
which  he  is  such  officer,  and  are  not  held  by  such  bank  as 
a  security  for  any  loan,  or  as  a  collateral  for  any  payment 
or  other  purpose.  All  deductions  required  to  be  made  by 
the  City  Collector  of  Baltimore  City  by  the  provisions  of 
said  last  mentioned  Act,  shall  be  made  in  accordance  with 
said  provisions.  Nothing  in  this  Section  shall  be  construed 
to  relieve  any  corporation  from  the  payment  of  any  franchise 
tax  required  to  be  paid  by  the  provisions  of  Section  89  of 
this  Article ;  provided,  that  nothing  herein  shall  affect  the 
tax  levy  for  1914. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  this  Act  shall 
take  effect  from  the  date  of  its  passage,  and  that  all  other 
laws  inconsistent  herewith  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  re- 
pealed, in  so  far  as  the  same  are  inconsistent  with  the  provis- 
ions of  this  Act,  but  no  further. 


ACT  TO  EXEMPT  MANUFACTURING  PLANTS 
THROUGHOUT  THE  STATE. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  528. 


At  the  sesion  of  1914  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland 
passed  an  Act,  amending  sections  4,  162  and  161  of  Article 
81  of  the  Public  General  Laws  as  codified  in  the  Annotated 
Code  of  1912,  to  encourage  the  development  of  manufac- 
turing industries  by  exempting  the  tools,  machinery,  manu- 
facturing implements  and  engines  of  corporations,  firms 
individuals  actually  engaged  in  manufacturing,  providing. 


204  Appendix 

that  such  exemption  shall  be  granted  only  when  authorized 
by  the  County  Commissioners  of  granted  only  when  author- 
ized by  the  County  Commissioners  or  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  of  Baltimore. 

The  Act  provides  that  "the  County  Commissioners  of  any 
County  shall  by  resolution  determine  by  a  vote  of  its  mem- 
bers whether  there  shall  be  in  their  respective  County  the 
exemption  of  the  tools,  machinery,  manufacturing  imple- 
ments and  engines  of  corporations,  firms  and  individuals 
actually  engaged  in  manufacturing,  and  duly  certified  to  the 
State  Tax  Commissioner  of  Maryland ;  and  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council  of  Baltimore  shall  by  ordinance  determine 
whether  the  tools,  machinery,  manufacturing  implements 
and  engines  of  corporations,  firms  and  individuals  actually 
engaged  in  manufacturing  within  the  City  of  Baltimore  shall 
be  exempt  from  taxation ;  and  wherever  no  determination 
has  been  made  and  duly  certified  to  the  State  Tax  Commis- 
sioner, then  and  in  that  case,  the  tools,  machinery,  manu- 
facturing implements  and  engines  of  corporations,  firms  and 
individuals,  actually  engaged  in  manufacturing,  shall  be  re- 
quierd  to  pay  all  taxes  assessed  against  said  property." 


THE  ACT  FIXING  THE  TAX  RATE  ON  DIVIDEND 

PAYING  SECURITIES  AT  FIFTEEN  CENTS 

FOR  THE  STATE  AND  THIRTY 

CENTS  FOR  COUNTIES  AND 

CITIES. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  411, 


AN  ACT  to  repeal  Section  214,  of  Article  81  of  the 
Annotated  Code  of  Public  General  Laws  of  1912,  title 
"Revenue  and  Taxes."  and  to  re-enact  the  same  with 
amendments. 

Sec.  1.     Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land, That  Section  214  of  Article  81  of  the  Annotated  Code 


Appendix  205 

of  Public  General  Laws  of  1912,  title  "Revenue  and  Taxes," 
be  and  it  is  hereby  repealed  and  re-enacted  so  as  to  read  as 
follows : 

SEC.  214.  All  bonds,  certificates  of  indebtedness  or  evi- 
dence of  debt  in  whatsoever  form  made  or  issued  by  any 
public  or  private  corporation  incorporated  by  this  State  or 
any  other  State,  territory,  district  or  foreign  country,  or  is- 
sued by  any  State  (except  the  State  of  Maryland),  terri- 
tory, district  or  foreign  country  not  exempt  from  taxation 
by  the  laws  of  this  State,  and  owned  by  residents  of  Mary- 
land, shall  be  subject  to  valuation  and  assessment  to  the 
owners  thereof  in  the  county  or  city  in  which  such  owners 
may  respectively  reside,  and  they  shall  be  assessed  at  their 
actual  value  in  the  market,  and  such  upon  which  no  interest 
shall  be  actually  paid  shall  not  be  valued  at  all,  and  upon 
such  valuation  the  regular  rate  of  taxation  for  State  pur- 
poses, but  in  no  event  more  than  fifteen  cents  on  each  one 
hundred  dollars,  shall  be  paid,  and  there  shall  also  be  paid  on 
such  valuation  thirty  cents  and  no  more  on  each  one  hundred 
dollars  for  county,  city  and  municipal  taxation  in  such 
county  or  city  of  this  State  in  which  the  owners  may  reside. 
All  shares  of  stock  or  shares  in  any  bank  other  than  a 
national  bank,  or  in  any  company  or  corporation  incor- 
porated by  or  located  in  and  doing  business  in  any  other 
State,  or  District  of  Columbia,  or  in  any  territory  or  foreign 
country  owned  by  residents  of  this  State,  shall  be  valued 
and  assessed  for  the  purpose  of  State,  county  and  municipal 
taxation  to  the  owners  thereof  in  the  county  or  city  in  which 
such  owners  may  reside,  and  said  shares  shall  be  assessed 
and  valued  at  their  actual  value  in  the  market,  and  those 
upon  which  no  dividend  shall  be  actually  paid  shall  not 
be  valued  at  all,  and  upon  the  valuation  so  made  the  regular 
rate  of  taxation  for  State  purposes,  but  in  no  event  more 
than  fifteen  cents  on  each  hundred  dollars,  shall  be  paid,  and 
there  shall  also  be  paid  on  such  valuation  thirty  cents,  and 
no  more,  on  each  one  hundred  dollars  for  county,  city  and 
municipal  taxation  in  such  county  or  city  of  this  State  iu 
which  the  owners  may  reside. 


206  Appendix 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  this  act  shall 
take  effect  on  the  day  of  its  passage,  provided  that  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  affect  taxes  for  the  year  1914  or  any 
year  prior  thereto. 


THE   ACT  EXEMPTING  STATE,   COUNTY   AND 
CITY  BONDS  FROM  TAXATION. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  43. 


AN  ACT  to  add  a  new  Section  to  Article  81  of  the  Code  of 
Public  General  Laws,  title  "Revenue  and  Taxes,"  sub- 
title "Exemptions,"  to  be  designated  4-A  and  to  follow 
Section  4  of  said  Article. 

Sec  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land, That  a  new  Section  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  added 
to  Article  81  of  the  Code  of  Public  General  Laws,  title 
"Revenue  and  Taxes,  sub-title  Exemptions,"  to  be  designated 
4-A  and  to  follow  Section  4  of  said  Article,  and  to  read  as 
follows : 

4-A  For  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  fourteen  and 
thereafter  all  bonds,  stocks,  certificates  of  indebtedness  or 
other  obligations  in  whatsoever  form  hereafter  to  be  issued 
by  the  State  of  Maryland,  or  by  any  County*,  City  or  Muni- 
cipal Corporation  or  other  political  sub-division  of  this  State, 
either  under  a  law  heretofore  passed  or  under  a  law  here- 
after to  be  passed,  and  all  bonds,  stocks,  certificates  of  in- 
debtedness or  other  obligations  in  whatsoever  form  hereto- 
fore issued  by  any  County  or  Municipal  Corporation  of  this 
State  and  which,  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  Act,  have  been 
sold  under  terms  rendering  such  County,  City  or  Municipal 
Corporation  liable  for  the  State  Tax  thereon  on  behalf  of  the 
holders,  shall  be  exempt  from  taxation  for  State,  County, 
Municipal  and  other  local  purposes ;  but  nothing  herein  con- 
tained shall  be  construed  to  deprive  corporations  of  the 
credits,  deductions  and  allowances  on  their  shares  provided 
for  in  Section  163  of  Article  81,  of  Bagby's  Code  of  Public 


Appendix  207 

Civil  Laws,  which  shall  continue  to  be  allowed  to  the  same 
extent  as  if  all  of  the  stock  debt  of  this  State  upon  which, 
but  for  the  passage  of  this  Act,  the  State  tax  would  have 
been  deducted  by  the  Treasurer,  and  all  of  the  stock  debt 
of  the  City  of  Baltimore  on  which,  but  for  the  passage  of 
this  Act,  the  State  taxes  would  have  been  paid,  or  payable 
by  said  city,  had  continued  subject  respectively  to  said  de- 
ductions or  payments  of  taxes  without  any  change  hereby. 

Sec  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  this  Act  shall 
take  effect  from  the  date  of  its  passage,  and  all  Acts  and 
parts  of  Acts  inconsistent  herewith  are  hereby  repealed. 


AN  ACT  DEFINING  THE  MANNER  IN  WHICH  THE 

REAL  AND  PERSONAL  PROPERTY  AND 

SHARES  OF  STOCK  OF  'ORDINARY 

BUSINESS  CORPORATIONS" 

SHALL  BE  VALUED  AND 

ASSESSED. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  324. 


AN  ACT  to  repeal  Sections  100  to  105,  both  inclusive,  of 
Article  81,  as  the  same  are  numbered  and  set  forth  in 
the  annotated  Code  of  the  Public  Civil  Laws  of  Mary- 
land, as  legalized  by  Chapter  21  of  the  Acts  of  1912  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  title  "Revenue  and 
Taxes,"  sub-title  " Bonus  Tax  on  Capital  Stock/'  and 
to  make  all  such  Sections  and  parts  of  Sections  of  said 
Article  81,  title  "Revenue  and  Taxes,"  as  relate  to  the 
taxation  of  the  capital  stock  of  corporations  defined  in 
this  Act  as  "ordinary  business  corporations,"  and  any 
amendments  thereof,  inapplicable  to  such  "ordinary 
business  corporations ;"  and  to  provide  as  a  substitute 
for  the  Sections  of  said  Article  so  repealed  or  made 
inapplicable,  six  new  Sections  as  an  addition  to  Article 
23  of  said  annotated  Code  of   Public  Civil  Laws  of 


208  Appendix 

Maryland,  to  follow  immediately  after  Section  88  of 
said  Article  23,  and  to  be  numbered  respectively  Sec- 
tions 88-A,  88-B,  88-C,  88-D,  88-E  and  88-F,  providing 
for  the  payment  of  a  bonus  tax  by  certain  corporations, 
prescribing  the  method  of  taxation  of  "ordinary  busi- 
ness corporations,"  and  defining  "ordinary  business 
corporations." 

Skc.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land, That  Sections  100  to  lOo,  both  inclusive,  of  Article  81, 
as  the  same  are  numbered  and  set  forth  in  the  Annotated 
Code  of  the  Public  Civil  Laws  of  Maryland,  as  legalized  by 
Chapter  21  of  the  Acts  of  1912  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland,  tittle  "Revenue  and  Taxes,"  sub-title  "Bonus  Tax 
on  Capital  Stock,"  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed ;  and 
that  all  such  Sections  and  parts  of  Sections  of  said  Article 
81,  title  "Revenue  and  Taxes,"  as  relate  to  the  taxation  of 
the  capital  stock  of  corporations  denned  in  this  Act  as 
"Ordinary  Business  Corporations,"  and  any  amendments 
thereof,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  made  inapplicable  to 
such  "Ordinary  Business  Corporations ;"  and  that  as  a 
substitute  for  the  Sections  of  said  Article  so  repealed  or 
made  inapplicable,  the  following  six  new  Sections  shall  be 
and  the  same  are  hereby  enacted  as  an  addition  to  Article 
23  of  said  Annotated  Code  of  the  Public  Civil  Laws  of 
Maryland,  to  follow  immediately  after  Section  88  of  said 
Article  2:>,  and  to  be  numbered  respectively  Sections  88-A, 
88-B,  88-C,  88-D,  88-E  and  88-F,  and  to  read  respectively 
as  follows : 

Sec.  88-A  Every  corporation  of  this  State  having  a 
capital  stock  except  railroads  and  building  or  homestead 
associations,  shall,  at  the  time  of  incorporation,  pay  for  the 
use  of  the  State  a  bonus  tax  at  the  rate  of  twenty  cents 
for  every  thousand  dollars  of  the  amount  of  its  authorized 
capital  stock,  and  at  the  time  of  amending  its  articles  of 
incorporation  to  effect  an  increase  of  its  authorized  capital 
stock,  a  like  bonus  tax  upon  the  authorized  amount  of  any 
such  increase  thereof,  but  in  no  case  shall  such  payment  be 
less  than  twenty  dollars ;  provided,  however,  that  in  the  case 


Appendix  209 

of  the  consolidation  of  existing  corporations  to  form  a  new 
corporation  such  new  corporation  shall  be  required  to  pay 
the  bonus  tax  herein  prescribed,  for  only  the  amount  of  its 
capital  stock  in  excess  of  the  aggregate  amount  of  capital 
stock  of  the  constitutent  corporations;  and  the  amount  of 
such  bonus  tax  shall  be  deposited  with  the  State  Tax  Com- 
missioner, in  cash  or  in  such  other  form  as  shall  be  accept- 
able to  him,  when  the  certificate  of  incorporation,  or  the 
articles  of  amendment  increasing  the  capital  stock,  are  filed, 
who  shall  account  quarterly  therefor  to  the  Comptroller  and 
pay  the  same  forthwith  to  the  State  Treasurer  for  the  use 
of  the  State. 

Sec.  88-B.  All  corporations  having  a  capital  stock,  shall 
for  the  purpose  of  this  Act,  be  ordinary  business  cor- 
porations, and  are  hereby  so  defined,  except  railroad  com- 
panies whose  roads  are  worked  by  steam,  electric  or  other 
power,  street  and  passenger  railways,  steamship  and  steam- 
boat companies,  and  all  other  common  carriers,  telegraph, 
cable,  telephone,  express,  transportation,  parlor  car,  sleep- 
ing car,  and  oil  pipe  companies,  turnpike  companies,  bridge 
companies,  and  sewerage  disposal  companies,  safe  deposit 
and  trust  companies,  guarantee  and  fidelity  companies,  insur- 
ance companies  of  all  kinds,  electric  light,  electric  con- 
struction, heating,  refrigerating,  water  and  gas  companies, 
building  or  homestead  associations,  state,  national  and  sav- 
ings banks,  or  savings  or  moneyed  institutions.  Every 
ordinary  business  corporation  created  or  to  be  created  under 
the  laws  of  this  State  shall  from  and  after  the  expiration 
of  the  year  1914  be  exempt  from  taxation  on  its  shares,  nor 
shall  its  shares  be  assessed  or  valued,  for  the  purpose  of 
taxation  in  the  hands  of  the  holders  thereof. 

Sec.  88-C.  Every  ordinary  business  corporation  shall  be 
subject  to  taxation  upon  its  property,  real  and  personal 
which  would  be  taxable  in  this  State  if  such  corporation 
were  a  natural  person  and  engaged  in  a  similar  business,  and 
the  taxes  thereon  shall  be  levied,  assessed  and  collectible 
in  the  following  manner  and  not  otherwise:  On  all  real 
property  the  taxes  shall  be  levied  and  assessed,  and  shall 
be  payable  at  its  situs,  as  now  provided  by  law.     All  personal 


210  Appendix 

property  of  such  corporation,  exclusive  of  bonds,  shares  of 
stock  and  securities  as  enumerated  in  Article  81,  Section 
214  of  the  Code  of  Public  Civil  Laws  (1912)  and  property 
which  by  law  is  exempt  from  taxation,  and  exclusive  of 
manufacturing  plants  situated  in  any  city  or  county  in  which 
by  law  or  ordinance  manufacturing  plants  are  exempt  from 
county  or  municipal  taxation  shall  be  valued  and  assessed 
by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner  or  any  State  officer  or 
officers  who  may  be  authorized  to  exercise  the  functions  now 
or  formerly  exercised  by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner,  and 
when  so  valued,  the  whole  personal  assessment  shall  be 
apportioned  between  the  several  counties  and  cities  of  the 
State  by  the  State  tax  Commissioner  or  other  State  officers, 
in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  shares  of  stock  of 
such  corporation  held  by  residents  of  each  county  or  city 
of  this  State  bears  to  the  total  number  of  shares  of  stock  of 
such  corporation  outstanding,  stock  of  such  corporation 
held  by  non-residents  of  this  State  being  treated  for  this 
purpose  as  if  held  by  residents  of  the  county,  city  or 
municipality  where  the  main  office  of  such  corporation  in 
this  State  for  the  transaction  of  business  is  actually  situated, 
and  when  so  apportioned  the  State,  County  and  municipal 
taxes  thereon  shall  be  payable  by  such  corporation  to  the 
officers  authorized  to  collect  State,  County  and  Municipal 
taxes  at  the  residence  of  such  stockholders  at  the  tax  rate 
fixed  by  the  State  and  County,  City  or  Municipality  at  the 
residence  of  such  stockholders,  bonds,  shares  of  stock  and 
securities  as  enumerated  in  Article  81,  Section  214  of  the 
Code  of  Public  Civil  Laws  (1912)  owned  by  an  ordinary 
business  corporation  shall  be  valued  and  assessed  in  the 
manner  and  taxes  shall  be  paid  thereon  at  the  rate  provided 
in  said  Article  81,  Section  214  as  if  owned  by  a  natural 
person. 

Sec.  88-D.  From  and  after  the  expiration  of  the  year 
1914,  everv  such  business  corporation  shall  pay  annually  to 
the  State  Treasurer  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  M'ay  in 
each  year  succeeding  the  date  of  its  incorporation,  an  annual 
tax  for  its  franchises  to  be  a  corporation  (in  addition  to  any 
tax  now  imposed  by  law)  at  the  following  rate,  that  is  to 


Appendix  211 

say :  On  the  amount  of  its  capital  stock  issued  and  out- 
standing on  the  first  day  of  the  preceding  January  for  the 
first  five  thousand  dollars  or  less  the  sum  of  ten  dollars ;  for 
every  one  thousand  dollars  or  fractional  part  thereof  in 
excess  of  said  five  thousand  dollars  up  to  and  not  greater 
than  fifty  thousand  dollars  the  additional  sum  of  one  dollar; 
for  every  additional  fifty  thousand  dollars  or  fractional  part 
thereof  in  excess  of  said  fifty  thousand  dollars  up  to  and  not 
greater  than  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  the  sum  of 
twenty  five  dollars ;  if  the  amount  of  such  capital  stock  is 
more  than  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  and  not  more  than 
five  million  dollars  there  shall  be  an  additional  annual  fran- 
chise tax  on  such  excess  over  five  hundred  thousand  dollars 
at  the  rate  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  every  million 
dollars  or  fractional  part  thereof  and  on  every  million  dol- 
lars in  excess  of  five  million  dollars  the  additional  tax  on 
such  excess  shall  be  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  dollars  for 
each  million  dollars  or  fractional  part  thereof.  And  for  the 
purpose  of  this  Section,  the  entire  authorized  capital  stock 
of  such  corporation,  as  shown  by  the  charter,  certificate  of 
incorporation  or  any  amendment  thereof  shall  be  taken  as 
issued,  unless  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  March  in  each 
and  every  year  the  corporation  shall  file  with  the  State  Tax 
Commissioner  a  certificate  signed  and  sworn  to  by  two  of 
its  directors,  showing  the  actual  number  of  its  outstanding 
shares  as  of  the  first  day  of  the  preceding  January.  The 
Comptroller  shall  annually  on  or  before  the  first  day  of 
April  in  each  year,  transmit  to  such  corporation  a  bill  for 
the  amount  of  its  franchise  tax,  and  such  tax  shall  be  pay- 
able on  or  before  the  first  day  of  May  following,  and  shall 
bear  interest  thereafter ;  if  such  tax  shall  not  be  paid  before 
the  first  day  of  November  following,  a  penalty  of  ten  per 
cent,  on  the  amount  thereof  shall  be  added,  and  the  Comp- 
troller shall  place  the  bill  therefor  in  the  hands  of  the  At- 
torney General  for  collection  by  suit  in  the  name  of  the 
State  and  the  failure  of  any  such  corporation  to  pay  such 
tax,  interest  and  penalty  shall  constitute  a  cause  for  for- 
feiture, for  which  dissolution  proceedings  may  be  instituted 
as  above  provided  by  this  Article. 


212  Appendix 

Sec.  887E.  One-half  of  the  annual  tax  for  the  franchise 
provided  for  by  Section  88-D  of  this  Article,  together  with 
the  interest  and  penalty,  if  any,  shall  be  held  by  the  Treas- 
urer for  the  use  of  the  State,  and  the  other  half  shall  be 
paid  by  him  forthwith  to  the  County  or  City  according  to 
the  number  of  shares  held  by  the  residents  of  such  county 
or  city. 

Sec.  88-F.  Excepting  ordinary  business  corporations,  all 
corporations  of  this  State,  including  their  franchises,  shares 
and  property,  and  national  banks  located  in  this  State  shall 
remain  and  be  subject  to  taxation,  as  now  is  or  hereafter 
may  be  provided  by  law,  and  nothing  herein  shall  be  con- 
strued to  exempt  an  ordinary  business  corporation  from  the 
payment  of  any  license  tax  or  charge  imposed  by  law. 


AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CITY  CHARTER  RELATING 
TO  METHODS  OF  TAXATION. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  532. 


AN  ACT  to  repeal  and  re-enact,  with  amendments,  Sections 
40,  43,  51,  164-A,  167  and  171  of  Article  4  of  the  Code 
of  Public  Local  Laws,  title  "City  of  Baltimore,"  sub- 
title "Charter." 
Sec.  1.     Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land, That  Sections  40,  43,  51,  164-A,  167  and  17i  of  Article 
4  of  the  Code  of  Public  Local  Laws,  title  "City  of  Balti- 
more,"  sub-title  "Charter,"  be   and   the   same   are   hereby 
repealed  and  re-enacted  with  amendments,  so  as  to  read  as 
follows : 

40.  The  Board  of  Estimates  shall,  on  the  first  day  of 
October,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  practicable,  in  the  year 
eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-eight  and  in  each  succeeding 
year,  procure  from  the  proper  municipal  department  and 
shall  send,  with  the  said  ordinance  of  estimates,  to  both 
branches  of  the  City  Council,  a  report  showing  the  taxable 
basis  for  the  next  ensuing  fiscal  year,  and  the  amount  which 


ApPENDrx  g  \:\ 

can  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  realized  by  taxation  for 
said  year.  The  report  shall  contain  an  aggregate  statement 
of  all  the  moneys  to  be  expended  during  the  next  ensuing 
fiscal  year  by  the  City,  as  set  forth  in  said  ordinance  of 
estimates,  as  well  as  of  any  other  sums,  if  such  there  be, 
which  the  City  may  be  required  to  expend  during  the  said 
year  for  any  purpose  or  purposes  not  included  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  estimates,  and  it  shall  also  state  the  total  income 
which  can  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  received  by  the  City 
for  the  next  ensuing  fiscal  year  from  licenses,  fees,  rents  and 
all  other  charges,  including  the  amount  believed  to  be  col- 
lectible from  taxes  in  arrears.  The  report  shall  show  the 
difference  between  such  anticipated  expenditures  and  re- 
ceipts of  the  City,  and  shall  state  a  rate  for  the  levy  of  taxes 
sufficient  to  realize  the  amount  required  to  meet  the  said  dif- 
ference. In  the  ordinance  making  the  annual  levy  of  taxes, 
which  ordinance  shall  be  passed  by  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  of  Baltimore  in  the  month  of  November  in  each 
year,  and  as  soon  as  practicable  after  the  passage  of  the 
ordinance  of  estimates,  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of 
Baltimore  shall  fix  a  rate  of  taxation  not  less  than  the  rate 
stated  in  the  aforesaid  report;  so  that  it  shall  not  be 
necessary  at  any  time  for  the  City,  its  officers  or  agents, 
to  create  a  floating  debt  to  meet  any  deficiency,  and  it  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  the  City,  its  officers  or  agents,  to  create  a 
floating  debt  for  any  such  purpose.  The  taxes  levied  under 
said  ordinance  in  the  month  of  November  in  each  year  shall 
be  the  taxes  to  be  collected  for  the  fiscal  year  next  ensuing 
after  the  said  month  of  November  and  shall  be  due  and 
may  be  paid  to  the  City  Collector  on  or  after  the  first  day 
of  January  next  ensuing.  The  taxes  included  in  said  levy 
on  real  estate  or  chattels  real,  and  on  all  forms  of  personal 
property  including  shares  of  stock  and  other  property, 
valued  or  subject  to  valuation  by  the  State  Tax  Commis- 
sioner shall  be  in  arrears  on  the  first  day  of  July  next 
ensuing  the  date  of  their  levy,  and  the  taxes  on  all  forms  of 
property  after  they  become  in  arrears  as  aforesaid  shall  bear 
interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum. 


214  Appendix 

43.  Whenever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  sell  any  part 
or  parcel  of  ground  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  improved  or 
unimproved,  for  the  payment  of  any  taxes  or  assessment, 
of  any  nature  or  kind  whatever,  levied  or  charged,  the  City 
Collector  shall  first  give  notice  by  advertisement  published 
once  a  week  for  four  successive  weeks  in  two  of  the  daily 
newspapers  published  in  said  city,  one  of  which  shall  be  in 
the  German  language,  and  in  every  issue  of  the  Municipal 
Journal  during  said  four  weeks,  that  he  will  sell  said 
property  at  public  auction  on  the  day  in  said  advertise- 
ment mentioned.  Said  notice  shall  state  the  name  of  the 
person,  when  known,  to  whom  such  a  parcel  of  ground  is 
assessed,  the  amount  of  taxes  due  on  the  same,  and  what  im- 
provements, if  any,  are  on  said  parcel  of  ground,  and  to 
properly  describe  said  property  the  City  Collector  shall  pro- 
cure a  description  from  the  Land  Records  and  no  survey 
shall  be  made  unless  a  proper  description  cannot  be  obtained 
from  the  Land  Records,  and  no  charge  for  survey  shall  be 
made  unless  a  survey  is  actually  made.  If  a  proper  de- 
scription cannot  be  obtained  from  the  Land  Records,  the 
City  Surveyor  shall,  upon  direction  of  the  City  Collector 
make  a  proper  survey  and  furnish  a  description  and  plat  to 
ihe  City  Collector,  and  the  sum  of  three  dollars  for  the  cost 
of  such  survey  shall  be  added  to  the  tax  bill,  and  collected 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  bill  itself,  and  paid  over  to  the 
City  Register  for  the  use  of  the  City.  The  City  Collector 
shall,  before  advertising  said  property  for  sale  give  to  the 
person  or  persons  so  in-  arrears,  or  to  one  of  them,  if  more 
than  one,  or  leave  at  his  or  her  or  their  residence,  or  last 
known  residence  of  one  of  them,  and  if  no  such  residence  be 
known,  there  shall  be  left  upon  the  premises  so  to  be  sold  for 
taxes,  a  statement  of  his  or  her  or  their  indebtedness,  and 
not  less  than  thirty  days'  notice  of  his  (said  Collector's) 
intention,  if  the  bill  is  not  paid,  to  enforce  the  payment 
thereof  by  distraint  or  execution.  Provided,  however,  that 
this  paragraph  shall  not  apply  to  or  affect  the  present  City 
Surveyor. 

51.     The  City  Collector  shall  at  least  two  weeks  before  the 
taxes  become  in  arrear  give  notice,  by  advertisement  in  two 


Appendix  215 

daily  papers  published  in  Baltimore  City  and  in  the  Munici- 
pal Journal,  of  the  day  on  which  all  taxes  for  the  current 
fiscal  year  become  in  arrear ;  and  shall,  on  the  application,  in 
person  or  by  agent  or  by  mail,  of  any  person  to  whom 
property  is  assessed,  deliver  or  send  by  mail  a  bill  showing 
the   amount   of   taxes    due   by    such    person.     Two   weeks 
before  the  day  on  which  such  taxes  shall  by  law  be  in  arrear, 
he  shall  give  notice  by  advertisement  in  the  same  way  that 
all  taxes  not  paid  on  or  before  that  date  will  be  in  arrears, 
and  that  the  property  on  which  said  taxes  are  levied  will 
then  be  subject  to  be  sold  for  taxes.     And  said  notice  shall 
further   state  that  unless  the   taxes  are  paid  before  they 
become  so  in  arrear,  an  amount  equal  to  one  per  centum  per 
annum  on  the  gross  amount  thereof,  accounting  from  the 
date  when  said  taxes  become  in  arrear  shall  be  added  to 
each  bill  for  taxes  in  arrear;  and  if  the  same  be  not  paid 
before  they  so  become  in  arrear  an  amount  equal  to  one  per 
centum  per  annum  of  the  gross  amount  of  each  bill,  ac- 
counting from  the  time  said  taxes  became  in  arrear  to  the 
time  of  the  payment  thereof,  shall  be  added  thereto  as  a 
penalty,  and  collected  in  the  same  manner  as  the  bill  itself, 
said  penalty  to  be  paid  to  the  City  Collector  and  by  him  to 
the   City    Register  to   the   credit   of    the   Mayor   and   City 
Council.     In  the  case  of  escaped  or  omitted  property  the 
penalty  herein  provided,  and  also  interest  shall  be  added 
to  the  tax  bills  for  the  current  and  back  years  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  such  property  had  not  escaped  or  been  omitted. 
l(il-A.     The  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  City  shall 
have  the  power  at  any  time  to  value  and  assess  all  personal 
property  and  to  revise  such  valuations  and  assessments,  and 
to  value  and  assess  and  to  revise  all  valuations  and  assess- 
ments of  real  property  in  said  city,  and  to  lower  or  increase 
said  assessment  of  real  or  personal  property,  and  to  take 
steps   for  the  discovery  and  assessment  of  all  unassessed 
property  of  every  kind.    And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said 
Court,  at  least  once  in  every  five  years,  to  carefully  make 
such  general  revision  of  all  of  the  assessable  property  in  said 
City.   Whenever  said  Court  shall  propose  to  alter  or  change 
any  assessment,  or  make  any  new  assessment,  they  shall,  be- 


216  Appendix 

fore  such  assessment  is  made,  give  at  least  ten  days'  notice 
thereof,  in  writing,  served  upon  the  owner  of  the  property  to 
be  assessed  or  re-assessed,  or  upon  the  person  in  possession 
of  the  property  to  be  assessed,  or  in  whose  custody  the  same 
may  be,  or,  if  it  be  land  and  no  one  be  in  apparent  occupancy 
thereof,  then  by  a  notice  posted  on  said  land.  Said  notice 
shall  contain  such  interrogatories  as  may  be  reasonably 
necessary  to  enable  said  Court  to  correctly  assess  the 
property.  Said  interrogatories  shall  be  answered,  signed 
and  sworn  to  by  the  owner  of  the  property,  or  by  the 
authorized  agent  of  such  owner,  having  knowledge  of  the 
facts  inquired  for  in  said  interrogatories.  Such  affidavit 
may  be  made  before  any  Judge  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  or 
any  assessor  thereof,  who  is  hereby  authorized  to  take  the 
same,  and  who  shall  take  the  same  without  charge ;  or  such 
affidavit  may  be  made  before  any  officer  authorized  by  law 
to  take  affidavits.  If  any  person  upon  whom  such  inter- 
rogatories are  served  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  answer,  sign 
and  make  oath  to  the  same,  personally  or  by  authorized 
agent  as  aforesaid,  within  ten  days  after  service  of  the  same, 
the  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall  proceed  to  assess  the  property 
therein  referred  to,  according  to  law,  upon  their  best  in- 
formation and  judgment  in  the  premises,  and  shall  add 
thereto  an  additional  assessment  of  20%  of  the  amount  of 
such  assessment  so  ascertained,  as  a  penalty  for  such  failure 
or  refusal  to  answer  said  interrogatories.  Said  additional 
assessment  may  be  abated,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court,  at  any  time  before  October  first  in  any  year,  to 
take  effect  for  the  ensuing  year,  upon  the  filing  of  said 
interrogatories  answered,  signed  and  sworn  to  as  above 
provided,  and  the  Court  shall  thereupon  fix  the  assessment 
at  such  figure  as  will  represent  the  proper  valuation  of  such 
property.  Nothing  herein,  or  done  in  pursurance  hereof, 
shall  be  construed  to  relieve  any  escaped  or  omitted  property 
from  being  assessed  when  discovered,  as  may  be  provided 
by  law.  The  said  Court,  in  order  to  make  any  valuation, 
assessment,  revaluation  or  reassessment,  shall  have  power 
to  summon  before  it  any  person,  and  to  interrogate  him  or 
her  in  reference  to  the  existence,  situation,  ownership  or 


Appendix  217 

value  of  any  property  liable  to  assessment  by  said  Court,  or 
in  reference  to  the  taxable  residence  of  any  person,  and  any 
person  so  summoned  and  refusing  to  appear,  and  any  person 
refusing  to  be  sworn,  or  to  answer  touching  said  value, 
revaluation  or  assessment,  or  touching  his  or  her  property, 
or  touching  any  other  fact  relevant  to  any  inquiry  before 
said  Court,  shall  be  liable  to  prosecution  therefor,  and,  upon 
conviction,  shall  be  fined  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dol- 
lars, to  be  collected  as  other  fines  are  collected. 

167.  The  said  Court  is  directed  to  alter  and  correct  the 
account  of  any  person  who  may  have  disposed  of  or  acquired 
any  property  since  the  last  assessment,  or  whose  property, 
or  any  part  thereof,  may  have  been  omitted,  if  the  report  of 
such  disposition,  acquisition  or  omission  be  supplied  by 
satisfactory  evidence;  and  if  real  estate  or  other  property 
shall,  from  any  cause,  have  increased  or  decreased  in  value 
since  the  last  assessment,  the  said  Court  shall  correct  and 
alter  the  assessment  of  the  same,  so  as  to  conform  to  its 
present  value,  provided  that  any  party  desiring  to  apply  to 
the  Appeal  Tax  Court  for  a  revaluation  of  any  real  or 
personal  property,  shall  make  such  application  before  the 
first  day  of  September,  in  order  to  be  acted  on  so  as  to  take 
effect  for  the  ensuing  year.  The  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall 
not  receive  or  act  upon  any  such  application  made  after  the 
first  day  of  September  in  any  year,  so  as  to  affect  the 
assessment  for  the  ensuing  year. 

171,  In  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-eight,  and 
in  all  succeeding  years  thereafter,  the  valuation  of  the 
property  subject  to  taxation  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  as 
it  shall  appear  upon  the  assessment  books  of  said  Court  on 
the  first  day  of  October  in  each  and  every  year,  shall  be 
final  and  conclusive,  and  constitute  the  basis  upon  which 
taxes  for  the  next  ensuing  fiscal  year  shall  be  assessed  and 
levied ;  provided  that  the  foregoing  provision  shall  not  apply 
to  property  in  the  City  liable  to  taxation,  and  which  may 
have  escaped  or  which  may  have  been  omitted  in  the  regular 
course  of  valuation,  but  such  property  shall  be  valued  and 
assessed  and  the  owner  or  owners  thereof  charged  with 
current  taxes  and  back  taxes,  not  exceeding  four  years, 


218  Appendix 

• 

justly  due  thereon,  whenever  the  same  may  be  discovered 
and  placed  upon  the  assessment  books ;  and  the  annual 
levy  for  each  and  every  year  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to 
have  covered  and  embraced  all  property  which  was  not 
assessed,  but  which  ought  to  have  been  assessed,  for  the 
year  for  which  any  such  levy  was  made.  The  said  Court 
shall,  on  the  first  day  of  October,  or  as  soon  thereafter 
as  practicable,  in  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  fourteen, 
and  in  all  succeeding  years  thereafter  make  out  and  deliver 
to  the  City  Collector  a  statement  showing  the  valuation  and 
assessment  of  all  the  property  subject  to  taxation  in  said 
City,  as  it  shall  appear  upon  the  assessment  books  of  said 
Court  on  said  first  day  of  October ;  such  statement  shall 
contain  a  full  list  of  all  the  real  estate  as  the  same  has  been 
valued  and  assessed  by  blocks,  corresponding  so  far  as  may 
be  practicable  with  the  block  numbers  used  in  the  Record 
Office  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Baltimore  City,  with  the 
location  and  description  of  each  piece  or  parcel  of  ground 
so  assessed  and  valued,  and  also  shall  contain  an  alphabeti- 
cal list  of  all  persons  to  whom  personal  property  has  been 
assessed.  The  said  statement  shall  be  known  as  the  taxable 
basis  for  the  next  ensuing  fiscal  year,  and  after  the  levy  of 
taxes  it  shall  be  designated  as  the  tax  roll  for  said  year. 
Further,  the  said  Appeal  Tax  Court  shall  submit  to  the 
Board  of  Estimates  on  the  first  day  of  October,  or  as  soon 
thereafter  as  practicable,  a  statement  of  the  total  valuation 
of  the  respective  classes  of  property  as  shown  on  the  annual 
roll  submitted  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Baltimore  to  the 
City  Collector.  The  said  Court  shall  perform  such  other 
duties  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law  or  ordinances  not  in- 
consistent with  this  Article. 

Sec. 2.     And  be  it  further  enacted,  Ttoat  this  Act  shall 
take  effect  from  the  date  of  its  passage. 


Appendix  219 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  ACT  EXEMPTING  FIVE 
HUNDRED  DOLLARS  OF  HOUSEHOLD 

FURNITURE. 


ACT  OF  1914,  CHAPTER  467. 


Beginning  with  and  for  the  year  1915,  and  thereafter, 
all  household  furniture  and  effects  in  this  state  held  for  the 
household  use  of  the  owner  thereof  or  members  of  his  or 
her  family  shall  be  exempt  from  taxation  for  State  and 
local  purposes  to  the  extent  of  $500  of  the  assessed  value 
thereof;  but  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  to  apply  to 
any  furniture  or  effects  held  or  employed  for  purposes  of 
profit  or  in  connection  with  any  business,  profession  or 
occupation. 


INDEX. 


ABATEMENTS. 

applications  to  be  made  to  Appeal  Tax  Court  or  County  Com- 
missioners, i. 
for  allowance  or  deduction  from  existing  assessment,  I. 
on  account  of  sale,  transfer  or  alienation  of  property,  I. 
on  account  of  loss  or  removal  of  property,  I. 
or  through  collection  of  any  security  for  money,  i. 
as  to  the  disposal  thereof  and  re-investment  of  proceeds,  I- 

ACCURACY  OF  ASSESSMENTS. 

presumptions  are  in  favor  of  the  accuracy  of  assessments,  I. 

assumed  in  each  case  that  proper  notice  was  given,  I. 

that  correct  method  of  valuation  was  used,  I. 

and  that  valuation  is  fair,  i. 

burden  of  showing  to  the  contrary  is  on  the  complainant,  I. 

ACTUAL  OR  CONSTRUCTIVE  SITUS. 

right  of  city  or  county  to  assess  property  that  has  con- 
structive or  actual  situs  within  their  bounds,  97. 

ACTUAL  VALUES. 

the  value  of  an  article  is  what  it  will  bring  at  a  fair  sale,  101. 
the  market  price  of  stocks  a  proper  index  of  their  value,  101. 
in   assessing   domestic    shares,   the    Tax   Commission    should 
have  special  regard  for  the  market  price,  102. 

ACTIONS  TO  RECOVER  TAXES. 

see  NOTICE  AND  OPPORTUNITY  TO  BE  HEARD,  106. 

legal  method  to  compel  property  owner  to  pay,  1-2. 

suit  for  taxes  not  affected  by  failure  of  collector  to  give  due 
notice,  2. 

payment  of  corporation  taxes  may  be  enforced  by  suit,  2. 

duties  of  county  collectors  in  the  recovery  of  taxes,  2. 

suits  for  taxes  not  authorized  until  they  are  in  arrears,  2. 

a  person  assessed  without  notice  entitled  to  injunction  to  re- 
strain collection,  2-3. 


222  Index 

ACTS  OF  TAX  OFFICIALS  MUST  BE  WITHIN  LAW. 
no  person  can  be  taxed  without  notice,  3. 
County  Commissioners   must   set   aside  names  of  persons  so 
assessed,  3. 

ADMINISTRATORS   AND  EXECUTORS. 

must  pay  taxes  first  after  funeral  expenses,  3. 

their  duty  to  ascertain  what  taxes  are  due,  3. 

held  affected  by  notice  for  taxes  due  on  property  held  by 
them.  3. 

may  be  sued  in  county  where  he  resides  or  where  he  obtained 
administration,  3-4. 

taxes  not  debts,  and  no  set-off  is  admissible.  4. 

situs  of  taxation  of  securities  of  estate  is  the  place  of  admin- 
istration, 4. 

executor  has  right  to  retain  money  to  pay  paving  tax  bill,  4. 

administrators  who  are  creditors  must  prove  their  claims 
before  approval  by  Orphans'  Court,  4. 

ALIENOR  AND  ALIENEE. 

liability  for  taxes  on  property  sold  and  acquired,  4-5- 
duty  of  Appeal   Tax  Court  to  correct  record  when  property 
is  alienated,  5. 

ANNEX   BLOCK  BOUNDARIES. 

a  paved  alley,  though  in  bad  condition,  may  serve  as  a  boun- 
dary, 5. 
a  block  of  ground,  with  unpaved  lane  as  one  boundary,  not 

subject  to  full  city  rate.  7. 
a  turnpike  road,  graded  as  a  street,  may  be  treated  as  a  block 

boundary,  7. 
private  alley  through  block  exceeding  200.000  square  feet,  not 

a  boundary  to  divide  the  block.  7. 
an  alley  need  not  be  kerbed  to  make  it  a  boundary.  28. 
streets  and  alleys  bounding  on  a  block  need  not  be  public  to 

justify  the  city  tax.  31. 

ANNEX  BLOCKS  EXCEEDING  200,000  SQUARE  FEET, 
cannot  be  assessed  at  the  full  city  rate.  6. 
prohibitory  provision  in  Act  of  1902,  Chap.  130,  6. 
block   containing   200,600   square    feet   cannot,  be  classified   at 
city  rate,  6. 


Index  223 

ANNEX    BLOCKS    EXCEEDING    200,000    SQUARE    FEET— 
Continued. 

lots  of  ground  exceeding  200  feet  in  depth  in  a  block  of  more 
than  200,000  square  feet  must  be  classified  at  rural  rate,  7. 

ANNEX  PROPERTY— WHEN  LIABLE  FOR  CITY  TAXES. 

see  PURPOSE  OF  THE  "LANDED  PROPERTY/'  ACT 
OF  1902,  RELATING  TO  ANNEXED  TERRITORY, 
131. 
may  be  so  classified  when  it  reaches  development  described 

by  the  Legislature,  7. 
duty   of   Appeal    Tax    Court   to   list   property   when    so   de- 
veloped. 7-8. 

ANNEXATION  ACT  NOT  A  CONTRACT. 

the  Act  of  1888  not  a  contract  between  two  parties,  8. 

a   grant   of    the    sovereign    power   of    taxation   to    Baltimore" 

City,  8. 
power  may  be  withdrawn  or  modified  at  any  time,  8. 

APPEALS   FROM   ASSESSMENTS. 

see  STATE  TAX  COMMISSION,  ACT  OF  191k,  APPEN- 
DIX, p.  191. 

appeals  from  County  Commissioners  and  Appeal  Tax  Court,  8. 

if  question  be  of  fact,  appeal  must  be  made  to  State  Tax 
Commission,  8. 

if  question  be  one  of  law.  appeal  may  be  made  to  the  courts, 
8. 

aggrieved  party  must  pursue  the  remedy  pointed  out  by  the 
law,  8-9. 

otherwise,  equity  will  not  intervene  to  relieve  him,  9. 

appeals  from  refusal  of  County  Commissioners  to  abate  ex- 
isting assessments,  9. 

Act  of  1910,  Chap.  430,  does  not  refer  to  Commissioners  when 
acting  as  a  board  of  control  and  review,  9. 

no  remedy  for  taxpayers  who  fail  to  exercise  their  legal 
right  to  appeal,  9. 

when  appeals  may  be  made  from  county  boards  of  control,  9. 

only  when  complainant  alleges  he  is  not  the  owner,  or  prop- 
erty is  exempt,  9. 


224  Index 

APPEALS   FROM   ASSESSMENTS— Continued. 

Court  of  Appeals  not  required  to  review  findings  as  to 
facts,   10. 

but  may  intervene  when  assessments  are  capricious  and  un- 
warranted, io. 

APPLICATIONS  FOR  ABATEMENTS. 

taxpayers  who  apply  for  abatements  must  give  information 
to  tax  authorities  as  to  sales  and  transfers,  I. 

APPLICATION  FOR  REDUCTION  OF  ASSESSMENTS. 

applications  for  reduction  of  assessments  in  Baltimore  must 
be  filed  in  Appeal  Tax  Court  before  September  I.  (See 
Act  of  1914,  Appendix,  p.  217). 

ASSESSMENTS  FOR  SPECIAL  BENEFITS. 

see  PAVING  TAX  A  LAWFUL  EXERCISE  OF  LEG1S- 
TIVE  POWER,  116. 
PAVING  TAX  ON  PROPERTY,  NOT  ON  OWNER, 

117. 
SPECIAL  TAXES— POWER  OF  LEGISLATURE  TO 
IMPOSE,  151. 

no  objection  that  benefits  are  not  assessable  because  a  special 
fund  has  been  appropriated  for  the  object,  10. 

existence  of  a  street  loan  will  not  relieve  property  owner 
from  assessment,  10. 

right  to  assess  real  estate  for  benefits,  recognized  in  all  the 
states,  11. 

theory  that  those  benefited  should  contribute  to  the  cost,  11. 

power  to  make  such  assessments  expressly  granted  to  City  of 
Baltimore,   11. 

right  to  make  such  assessments  an  exercise  of  the  taxing 
power,  II. 

based  on  supposition  that  property  is  enhanced  in  value,  11. 

improvement  must  be  for  a  public  purpose  to  justify  assess- 
ment,  11. 

question  of  benefit  left  exclusively,  to  Mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, 12. 

courts  have  no  power  to  review  such  question,  12. 

Legislature  has  constitutional  power  to  authorize  such  assess- 
ments, 12. 


Index  225 

ASSESSMENTS  FOR  SPECIAL  PURPOSES— Continued. 

excessive  estimates  of  benefits  may  be  corrected  by  court  and 
jury,  12. 

special  assessments  may  be  levied  for  a  public  work  already 
done,   12. 

where  an  assessment  ordinance  is  declared  void,  the  Legisla- 
ture may  authorize  special  assessments  against  the  prop- 
erty, 12-13. 

ASSESSMENT  OF  A  DISTRIBUTED  ESTATE  VOID. 

an  assessment  against  an  estate  after  it  has  been  distributed 
by  order  of  Orphans'  Court  is  illegal  and  void.  13. 

in  making  such  an  assessment,  County  Commissioners  ex- 
ceeded their  powers,   13. 

ASSESSMENTS  GENERALLY— METHODS  IN  MAKING, 
INCREASING  AND  CORRECTING. 

see  NOTICE  AND  OPPORTUNITY  TO  BE  HEARD,  106. 

power  of  assessing  not  to  be  exercised  in  arbitrary  or  capri- 
cious manner,  13. 

with  due  regard  for  rights  of  property  owner,  13. 

property  owner  must  be  heard  before  his  rights  are  deter- 
mined,   13. 

assessment  without  notice  illegal  and  void.   14. 

judgment  of  County  Commissioners  final  when  legal  condi- 
tions are  observed,  14. 

where  they  proceed  without  warrant  of  law,  Equity  Courts 
will   intervene.   T4. 

authority  to  levy  taxes  must  be  strictly  pursued,   14. 

levy  is  binding,  though  it  is  made  on  day  other  than  that 
named  in  statute,   14. 

statute  fixing  levy  day,  merely  directory,  14. 

acts  of  a  tax  collector  are  unlawful  if  he  be  illegally  ap- 
pointed, though  bonded,  14. 

when  property  is  only  partly  exempt,  the  net  income  may  be 
capitalized  as  the  basis  of  assessment.   15. 

assessments  may  be  made  by  direct  legislative  act,   15. 

where  a  taxpayer  makes  a  return  to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court, 
he  is  estopped  from  raising  the  objection  that  the  assess- 
ment is  illegal.  15. 


226  Index 

BALTIMORE  AND  OHIO  R.  R.  TAXATION. 

property,  franchises,  capital  stock  and  shares  of  stock  in 
hands  of  shareholders  are  exempt  under  Act  of  1826, 
Sec.  18,  16. 

exemption  therein  granted,  a  contract  with  the  state,  16. 

not  repealable  by  subsequent  Legislature,  16. 

buildings,  elevators,  wharves,  piers  and  docks,  exempt,  16. 

gross  receipts  exempt,  17. 

structures  used  for  storage  purposes,  steamship  and  steam- 
boats, and  bonds  of  other  railways  owned  by  the  com- 
pany are  taxable,  17-18. 

BANK  TAXATION. 

see  BANK  TAX  ACT,  APPENDIX,  p.  201. 
where  shares  of  stock  in  the  hands  of  the  holders  is  taxed,  the 

real  and  personal  property  of  the  bank  becomes  exempt, 

18-19. 
to  tax  both   property  and  stock  would  be  a  double  tax.  and 

illegal  and  unjust,  19. 
under  Act  of  1841,  the  city  taxes  on  banks  was  legal,  but  the 

state  tax  void,  19-20. 
taxes  paid  on  bank  stock,  although  the  money  was  not  due, 

cannot  be  recovered  back.  20. 
United  States  statutes  authorized  the  states  to  tax  either  the 

real  property  or  shares  of  national  banks,  but  not  both, 

20. 
shares  of  stock  and  personal  property  of  foreign  corporations 

may  be  taxed  in  Maryland,  21. 
such  a  tax  is  not  a  double  tax,  21. 
the  tax   on   shares  is  a  tax  on   the  owners,   and  the  tax  on 

tangible  property,  a  tax  on  the  corporation.  21. 
exemption  of  personal  property  of  state  corporations  does  not 

invalidate   tax   on   personal   property   of   foreign   corpor- 
ation, 21. 
State  has  no  lien  on  bank  stock  for  taxes,  21. 
nor  any  right  of  action  against  the  bank  or  a  stockholder,  21. 
state  has  a  right  to  be  paid  taxes  on  bank  stock  out  of  the 

dividends  declared,  21. 
a  legislative  levy  on  bank  stock,  21. 
Code,  Art.  81,  sec.  214,  not  a  discrimination  against  national 

banks,  22. 


Index  227 

BENEVOLENT  INSTITUTIONS. 

see  EXEMPTIONS  FROM  TAXATION,  67. 

persons  claiming  exemption,   must  show  affirmatively  that  it 

is  authorized  by  law,  23. 
if  there  is  a  doubt,  the  doubt  must  be  resolved  in  favor  of 

the  state,  23. 
exemptions  must  be  granted  in  terms  clear  and  unequivocal, 

23- 

the  right  of  taxation  is  never  presumed  to  be  relinquished,  23. 
where  only  part  of  a  building  is  used  for  benevolent  purposes, 

the   remaining   part   must  be  taxed   as  other  property  is 

taxed,  24. 

"BLOCK  OF  GROUND"  IN  THE  ANNEX. 

an  area  not  exceeding  200,000  superficial  square  feet,  24. 
must  be  bounded  on  all  sides  by  streets,  graded,  kerbed  and 

paved  with  substantial  material,  24. 
taxing  power  limited  by  these  requisite  conditions,  24. 
courts  not  authorized  to   carve  out  blocks  by  using  private 

alleys  as  boundaries,  25. 
court  cannot  ignore  plain  provision  of  the  statute  as  to  what 

constitutes  a  block.  25. 

BONDED  INDEBTEDNESS. 

the  bonded  indebtedness  of  a  corporation  not  taxable,  26. 
under  Maryland  statutes,  no  part  of  it  is  assessable  property, 
26. 

BOND  TAXATION. 

bonds  secured  by  mortgage  are  assessable  to  the  owners.  102. 
corporations  not  taxable  therefor,   102. 

BONDS  OF  RAILROADS  TAXABLE. 

bonds  of  Northern  Central  and  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
roads taxable,  26. 

railway  bonds  do  not  come  within  the  terms  of  the  law  ex- 
empting mortgages  in  this  state,  26. 

exemptions  under  legislative  act  must  be  rigidly  construed,  26. 

BONDS  OF  TAX  COLLECTORS. 

sureties  cannot  plead  that  they  did  not  know  the  collector 
was  a  defaulter  at  the  time  of  reappointment,  26. 


226  Index 

BONDS    OF   TAX    COLLECTORS— Continued. 

a    surety    on    a   tax    collector's    bond,    cannot   plead   that   the 

required  oath  had  not  been  taken  by  the  collector,  26. 
where  the  collector  fails  to  pay  a  sura  of  money  ordered  by 
the  County  Commissioners,  the  sureties  are  liable  for  the 
amount,  26-27. 

BONUS  TAX. 

a  corporation  has  no  legal  existence  until  bonus  tax  is  paid, 

27. 
a  defendant,  sued  by  a  corporation,   may  plead  non-payment 

of  the  bonus  tax  in  bar,  27. 
a  subscription  to  corporation  stock  is  a  nullity,  if  the  bonus 

tax  has  not  been  paid,  27. 

BOOK  VALUES  OF  STOCK. 

book  values  of  shares  of  stock  not  a  true  measure  of  value, 
27. 

BRIDGES. 

bridges  across  streams  in  Maryland  are  taxable  in  county 
where  situated,  30. 

BUILDING  ASSOCIATIONS. 

exemption  of  building  associations  from  taxation  not  re- 
pealed by  Act  of  1896.  30. 

building  associations  not  being  money  making  corporations, 
their  exemption  is  not  arbitrary. 

BURDEN  OF  PROOF  IX  TAX  APPEALS. 

he  who  asks  affirmative  relief,  has  the  burden  of  proof,  31. 
incumbent  on  him  to  show  he  is  entitled  to  relief,  31. 

CAPITAL  STOCK  TAX. 

the  tax  on  capital  stock  is  a  tax  on  the  share  owners,  31. 

not  a  tax  upon  the  corporation,  31. 

the  corporation  merely  the  collector  of  the  tax,  31. 

CAPRICIOUS  VALUATIONS. 

valuation  made  in  capricious  or  unwarrantable  way,  no  assess- 
ment at  all,  10. 


Index  •.>:><) 

CATTLE. 

cattle  brought  to  Maryland  for  shipment  elsewhere,  taxable 
here,  32. 

the  tax  not  a  levying  of  a  duty  on  exports,  32. 

a  stock  of  cattle  is  taxed  at  its  average  value,  just  as  a  mer- 
chant's stock  is  taxed,  32. 

CEMETERIES  LIABLE  FOR  PAVING  TAX. 

cemeteries  are  not  exempt  from  a  paving  tax  levied  by  the 
city,  32. 

CEMETERY  IMPROVEMENTS. 

improvements  essential  to  a  cemetery  are  not  taxable,  32. 

CHARTER   EXEMPTIONS. 

where  the  charter  of  a  town  exempts  securities  from  taxa- 
tion, a  general  assessment  law  does  not  affect  exemp- 
tion, 102. 

CHURCH  PROPERTY  SOLD  AFTER  ASSESSMENT. 

a  church,  being  exempt  from  taxation,  sold  after  October  1st, 
cannot  be  taxed  to  the  purchaser  till  the  ensuing  year,  33. 

only  corporate  property,  or  escaped  or  omitted  property  can 
be  assessed  after  October  1st,  33. 

the  October  limit  fixed  in  city  charter,  arbitrary  and  con- 
clusive, 33. 

COAL  TAX  UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

the  Act  of  1872,  imposing  a  tax  per  ton  on  coal  mined  in  this 

state,  in  violation  of  Bill  of  Rights  and  Federal  Consti- 

tion,   34. 
taxation  of  a  mining  company's  capital  stock  exempts  all  its 

otker  property,  35. 

COLLATERAL  INHERITANCE  TAX. 

the  collateral  inheritance  tax  is  legal  whether  it  affects  resi- 
dents or  non-residents,  34-35. 

power  of  state  to  impose  the  tax,  unquestioned,  35. 

the  tax  is  on  value  of  property  at  time  of  transfer  to  bene- 
ficiary, 35. 

if  an  executor  fails  to  retain  the  tax,  it  may  be  collected 
from  the  legatee,  35. 


230  Index 

CONSTRUCTIVE  SITUS. 

counties  and  cities  have  authority  to  assess  where  the  prop- 
erty has  a  constructive  situs  within  their  bounds,  97. 

CORPORATIONS  CANNOT  BE  DISTRAINED  FOR  TAXES. 

corporations  must  pay  taxes  on  stock,  but  distraint  not  author- 
ized, 40. 

judgment  must  be  obtained,  and  execution  issued  for  delin- 
quent taxes  on  shares,  41. 

corporation  owes  the  money,  not  as  tax  payer,  but  as  tax  col- 
lector, 41. 

CORPORATION     BONDS     SECURED    BY    STATE    MORT- 
GAGES, TAXABLE, 
the  Legislature  authorized  to  tax  corporation  bonds  and  ex- 
empt individual  bonds,  42. 
no  doubt  such  bonds  are  liable  to  taxation  under  Code,  Art. 

81,  Sec.  2,  43. 
unless   discriminations   are   arbitrary,   courts   have  no  control 
of  question,  42. 

CORPORATION'S  FAILURE  TO  WITHOLD  TAXES. 

when  a  corporation  fails  to  retain  taxes  due  on  shares,  it 
becomes  liable  therefor,  43. 

CORPORATION'S  GROUND  RENTS. 

ground   rents  owned  by  a  corporation   are  not  a  part  of  its 

real  estate,  44. 
only  value  of  lands  directly  assessable  to  corporation  to  be 
deducted  from  stock  value,  45. 

CORPORATION  MORTGAGES  NOT  EXEMPT. 

mortgage  exemption,  Act  of   1870,  applies  only  to  the  mort- 
gage securities  themselves,  47- 
no  application  to  capital  stock  of  corporations.  47. 
Legislature  intended  to  exempt  only  mortgage  debt,  as  such, 

47- 
exemption    applies    to    mortgages    containing    a    covenant    to 

repay,  47. 

CORPORATION  OWNED  MACHINERY. 

machinery  owned  by  a  corporation  is  not  assessable  as  a 
part  of  the  real  estate.  98. 


Index  231 

CORPORATION    OWNED    MACHINERY— Continued. 
mandamus  may  issue  against  such  action,  98. 
must  be  valued  as  a  part  of  the  aggregate  value  of  shares,  98. 

CORPORATION  REAL  ESTATE  IMPROVEMENTS. 

improvements  on  real  estate  of  corporations  completed  before 
January  I,  may  be  assessed  for  the  ensuing  year,  112. 

CORPORATION  STATEMENTS. 

purpose  of  the  statute  to  fix  a  definite  time  for  filing,  48. 
first  day  of  January  the  time  as  of  which  returns  are  to  be 

made,  48. 
all  valuations  to  be  made  as  of  that  date,  48. 

CORPORATION  TAXES. 

corporation  taxes  payable  to  state  Treasurer,  49. 

not  payable  to  local  collectors,  49. 

state  may  enforce  payment  by  mandamus.  49. 

taxes  on  shares  of  stock  due  and  payable  November  1,  49. 

CORRECTING  ERRORS. 

when  a  taxpayer  knows  of  an  error  in  the  assessment  against 
him,  he  should  apply  to  have  it  corrected,  66. 

CORRECTNESS  OF  ASSESSMENTS. 

the  law  presumes  the  correctness  of  assessments,  21. 

COUNTY  BOARDS  OF  CONTROL. 

appeals    from   county   boards   of   control   allowed   only   when 

property  is  exempt,  9. 
when  taxpayer  alleges  he  is  not  the  owner,  9. 

COUNTY      COMMISSIONERS     CANNOT     TAX      ROLLING 
STOCK. 

the  law  provides  a  special  mode  of  assessing  rolling  stock.  49. 
commissioners  not  authorized  to  levy  taxes  thereon.  49. 

COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS  TO  REFUND. 

taxes  paid  on  an  erroneous  assessment,  must  be  repaid,  50. 
if  commissioners   decline  to  refund,  taxpayer   may   resort  to 
mandamus,  50. 


232  Index 

COUNTY    COMMISSIONERS— POWERS    AND    DUTIES    IN 
THE  LEVYING  OF  TAXES. 

see  POWERS  OF  COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS,  122. 
COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS  CANNOT  TAX  ROLL- 
ING STOCK,  49. 

COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS  POWER  TO  REFUND, 

49- 

commissioners  have  the  exclusive  power  to  levy  and  collect 
taxes,   125. 

in  some  cases  they  may  value  and  assess,   125. 

their  action  conclusive  and  cannot  be  received  by  a  Court  of 
Equity,   125. 

collection  of  taxes  not  to  be  interfered  with  for  mere  irregu- 
larities, 125. 

no  injunction  remedy  when  there  is  an  appellate  tribunal,  125. 

commissioners  may  be  restrained  from  levying  taxes  not 
authorized  by  law,   124. 

ample  power  to  revalue  previously  assessed  property,  124. 

essential  that  the  owner  should  have  a  notice  in  each  case,  124. 

commissioners  cannot  change  the  method  of  assessment,  125. 

may  levy  taxes  to  pay  for  fire-proof  vault  to  preserve  county 
records,   122. 

"DEBTS"  AND  "TAXES." 

a   debt   is   a    money   obligation   of   a   person,   incurred   in   his 

private  capacity.   51. 
a  tax  is  a  burden  put  upon  a  person  for  public  use.  51. 

DEDICATION   OF  STREETS. 

to  make  streets  public,  their  dedication   must  be  accepted  as 

provided  by  law,  104. 
the   adoption   of   a   new   charter   by   a   municipality   does  not 
operate  as  acceptance  of  all  dedicated  streets,   104. 

DEFECTIVE  NOTICE  RENDERS  TAX  SALE  VOID. 

a  tax  sale  made  without  due  notice  to  the  delinquent  is  illegal 

and  void,  52. 
collector   must  deliver   a  copy  of  each   tax   bill,   or   leave  at 

residence,  53. 
failure  to  do  either,  fatal  to  legality  of  sale,  53. 


Index  233 

DEPOSITS   IN   SAVINGS  BANKS  INVESTED   EN  (ikOUND 
RENTS. 

savings  bank  deposits  invested  in  ground   rents  arc  not  tax- 
able, 54. 
such  a  tax  would  subject  the  same  property  to  double  taxa- 
tion, 54. 

DISTILLED  SPIRITS. 

the  same  rate  of  taxation  shall  be  imposed  on  distilled  spirits 
as  on  other  personal  property  in  the  state,  56. 

tax  on  distilled  spirits  is  on  owner,  not  on  property,  56. 

distiller  is  agent  of  state  to  collect  the  taxes,  57. 

tax  collector  cannot  enforce  payment  by  distraint  on  dis- 
tiller, 57. 

any  agent  or  custodian  paying  tax  on  distilled  spirits  shall 
have  a  lien  on  the  same,  covered  by  such  tax.  57. 

DOMICILE  THE  TEST  OF  TAXIBILITY. 

see  "RESIDENCE"  AND  "DOMICILE;'  138. 

RESIDENCE     IS     WHERE     ONE    RESIDES     THE 

GREATER  PART  OF  THE  YEAR,  138. 
RESIDENCE  NOT  DEPENDENT  ON  INTENTION, 

140. 
RESIDENTS    WHO    REMOVE   AFTER   LEVY,   AS- 
S  ESS  ABLE,  142. 
property  has  its  habitat  at  the  domicile  of  the  owner,  57. 
possession  of  personal  property   follows  owner  wherever  he 

may  be  domiciled,  56. 
mere   intention   to   change  a   domicile   will   not   exempt   from 

taxation,  56. 
actual  removal  must  be  made  before  the  annual  levy,  56. 

DOUBLE  TAXATION. 

double  taxation  is   forbidden  by  the  State  Constitution,  56. 
a  double  tax   is  not  necessarily  void;   if  it  does  not  destroy 
equality,  it  isr  not  invalid,  58. 

DOUBT  IN  FAVOR  OF  STATE. 

in  case  of  doubt  as  to  an  exemption,  the  doubt  must  be  re- 
solved in  favor  of  the  State,  23. 


234  Index 

EASEMENTS  OF  THE  GAS  COMPANY  TAXABLE. 

property  which  Consolidated  Gas  Company  has  in  Baltimore 

highways,  an  easement  assessable  as  real  estate,  59. 
an  easement  is  essentially  an  interest  in  land,  59. 
value  of  an  easement  has  no  necessary  relation  to  value  of 

land  in  the  neighborhood,  61. 

ELECTRIC  LIGHTING  COMPANY  NOT  A  "MANUFACTUR- 
ING INDUSTRY." 
not  the  kind  of  enterprise  meant  by  the  phrase  manufacturing 

industry,  63. 
an  unwarranted  construction  of  the  law,  63. 

EQUITY  JURISDICTION  IN  TAX  CASES. 

see  INJUNCTIONS  NOT  ISSUED  WHEN  THERE  IS 
ANOTHER  REMEDY,  83. 

equity  will  not  intervene  by  injunction  when  there  is  another 
adequate  remedy,  64. 

an  equity  court  may  enjoin  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  from 
erroneously  classifying  Annex  property,  64. 

a  Court  of  Equity  may  restrain  the  illegal  levying  of  a  tax,  64. 

when  property  is  in  the  control  of  an  Equity  Court,  the  pay- 
ment of  taxes  must  be  by  its  authority,  65. 

collectors  must  apply  to  the  court  to  authorize  payment  of 
taxes,  65. 

taxes  due  on  insolvent  estate  are  payable  out  of  fund  in 
hands  of  receiver,  65. 

EQUITABLE  INTEREST  IN   PROPERTY. 

resident  owner  of  an  equitable  interest  in  property  shall  pay 

taxes  on  it,  120. 
though  the  legal  title  is  in  the  name  of  a  non-resident,  120. 

ERROR  AS  TO  NAME  IN  ASSESSMENT. 

when   a  person  or  company  is  aware  that  there   is  error  in 

the  name,  injunction  will  not  issue,  66. 
application  should  be  made  for  a  correction  of  the  mistake,  66. 

ERRORS  OF  TAX  OFFICIALS. 

errors,  omissions  and  irregularities  may  be  corrected  by  tax 
officials  by  means  which  the  law  provides,  66. 


Index  235 

ESCAPED  PROPERTY. 

see  OMITTED  PROPERTY,  113. 

may  be  placed  in  tax  books  after  the  levy  has  been  made,  67. 
absence  from  levy  will  not  affect  rights  of  state,  67. 
owner  not  released  thereby,  67. 

EVIDENCE  IN  TAX  APPEALS. 

in  tax  hearings  or  appeals,  assessors  may  mention  sales, 
leases  and  mortgages  of  similar  property  on  which  he 
based  valuation,  67. 

this,  although  he  has  only  been  informed  of  such  sales,  etc., 
and  has  no  personal  knowledge  of  them.  67. 

plats  made  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  are  admissible  in  evi- 
dence, 67. 

EXECUTORS. 

see  ADMINISTRATORS  AND  EXECUTORS,  3-4. 

EXEMPTIONS  FROM  TAXATION. 

exemptions  from  taxation  must  be  strictly  construed,  68. 

exemption  of  cemetery  property  does  not  include  a  fund 
invested  in  stocks,  68. 

only  the  buildings  of  charitable  institutions  reasonably  nec- 
essary are  exempt,  68. 

any  part  of  building  rented  out  or  otherwise  used  is  tax- 
able, 68. 

stocks  and  other  investments  assessable,  68. 

exemptions  have  no  application  to  a  paving  tax,  69. 

a  law  making  an  arbitrary  exemption  is  invalid,  69. 

partial  occupancy  of  a  graveyard  with  graves,  exempts  the 
whole,  69. 

personal  property  exemptions  of  domestic  corporations  do 
not  extend  to  foreign  companies,  69. 

a  railroad,  subject  to  taxation,  purchased  by  a  raailroad  that 
is  exempt,  is  still  taxable,  70. 

EXEMPTIONS   MUST   BE   EXPRESSLY   AUTHORIZED. 

a  city  has  no  right  to  make  a  contract  exempting  a  factory 

for  fifty  years,  100. 
the  authority  to  exempt  from  taxation  can  only  be  conferred 
by  the  Legislature,  100. 


236  Index 

EXPERT  WITNESS  IN  TAX  CASES. 

student  of  taxation  is  qualified  to  testify  as  an  expert  wit- 
ness,  61. 

FIRMS.  NOT  PARTNERS,   ASSESSABLE. 

partnership  assets  should  be  assessed  against  the  firm,  76. 
improper  to  assess  the  individual  members  of  a  firm,  76. 

FOREIGN  CORPORATIONS  SUBJECT  TO  STATE  LAWS. 

foreign  corporations  doing  business  in  this  state  liable  to  suit 

in  state  courts,  70. 
held  to  same  restrictions  and  duties  as  domestic  corporations, 

70. 
cannot  claim  any  other  or  greater  rights.  70. 

FOREIGN   OWNED   SECURITIES. 

shares  of  stock  in  domestic  corporations  owned  by  non-resi- 
dents payable  at  principal  office  of  company.  71. 

the  corporation  required  to  pay  tax  and  charge  amount  to 
shareowners.  71. 

held  by  courts  that  such  shares  are  situated  in  this  state.  71. 

situs  of  the  stock  fixed  by  statute.  71. 

notice  to  non-resident  shareholder  not  necessary,  71. 

notice  to  corporation  sufficient,  71. 

exemption  of  shares  in  domestic  corporations  does  not  apply 
to  non-resident  owners.  71-72. 

when  money  and  credits  of  non-resident  are  taxable  in  Mary- 
land,  72. 

if  controlled  by  local  agent  they  may  be  assessed.  72. 

FRANCHISE. 

defined   by  court   to   be   a   special   privilege  conferred   by  the 

state,  72. 
in  one  sense,  a  franchise  is  property,  72. 
but  not  property  in  meaning  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  72. 

FRANCHISE  AND  EASEMENT. 

the  right  to  occupy  the  streets  with  gas  mains  is  a  fran- 
chise, 74. 

the  actual  occupation  of  streets  with  mains  is  an  easement  in 
land,   74. 


Index  237 

GOODS  "PERMANENTLY  LOCATED." 

goods  in  stock,  for  sale,  are  permanently  located,  75. 
meaning    and    intent   of    constitutional   provision    as   to   loca- 
tion of  goods  and  chattels,  75. 

GROSS  RECEIPTS  TAX  NOT  A  DOUBLE  TAX. 

the  tax  on  shares  is  a  tax  against  individual  owners,  77. 
the  gross  receipt  tax  is  a  tax  against  the  corporation,  77. 
therefore,  the  gross  receipt  tax  is  not  a  double  tax,  77. 
a  gross  receipt  tax  is  not  a  tax  on  goods  transported,  78. 
not  in  conflict  with  right  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce, 

78. 
a  gross   receipt  tax  is  a  tax  on  the   franchise  of  a  company, 

measured  by  its  business,  78. 

I  GROUND  RENT  INVESTMENTS. 

landlord's   interest   in   the   land   is   a   form   of   money   invest- 
ment, 46. 
analagous  to  that  secured  by  a  mortgage,  46. 
it  is  the  fee  simple  in  the  land  that  is  assessed,  46. 

I      GROUND  RENT  INVESTMENTS  BY  SAVINGS  BANKS. 

savings  bank  deposits  invested  in  ground  rents  are  not  tax- 
able. 78. 

as  leasehold  owner  pays  tax,  a  further  burden  would  be  a 
double  tax,  79. 

I  GUARANTY  COMPANY  GROSS  RECEIPTS  TAX. 

limited  to  gross  receipts  within  the  state.  72. 
receipts   from  without  the  state  not  taxable.  72. 

j  GUARDIANS  RESPONSIBLE  FOR  TAXES: 

see  NON-RESIDENT  GUARDIAN  AND  HARD.  106. 

the  bond  of  a  guardian  is  liable  for  taxes  due  on  property  in 

his  hands,  79. 
liability  continues  after  final  account  and  property  has  been 

delivered  to  the  ward,  79. 

I  HEARSAY  EVIDENCE  IN  ARRIVING  AT  V  M.UATIONS. 

assessors  may  be  guided  by  information  received   from  others 

as  to  sales  and  rentals,  79. 
knowledge  of  the  best  experts  derived  from  hearsay. 
an  assessor  may  give  the  reasons  for  his  judgment,  80. 


238  Index 

HEARINGS. 

every  taxpayer  is  entitled  to  a  full  and  fair  hearing,  9. 
when  his  property  is  assessed,  9. 
when  assessment  is  increased,  9. 

and  in  the  Annex,  before  an  increased  rate  of  taxation  is 
imposed,   9. 

HOSPITALS  UNDER  STATE  MANAGEMENT. 

hospitals  under  state  management  not  assessable,  81. 

INCREASE  OF  ASSESSMENT  ON  LAND  IN  EQUITY  COURT. 

assessment  of  property  may  be  revised  while  in  hands  of 
Equity  Court,  83. 

permission  of  Equity  Court  not  needed  by  taxing  authori- 
ties, 83. 

trustee  not  entitled  to  injunction,  83. 

his   remedy  in  appellate  court,  83. 

INJUNCTIONS  NOT  ISSUED  WHEN  THERE  IS  ANOTHER 
REMEDY, 
aggrieved  taxpayers  must  appeal  to  courts,  83. 
no  injunction  given  when  tax  is  illegal,  83. 
nor  even  when  taxing  tribunal  exceeds  its  powers,  83. 
the  appellate  court  the  proper  one  to  review  irregularities.  84. 
only  the   failure  to  give  the  prescribed  notice  gives  jurisdic- 
tion to  the  Circuit  Court,  84. 

INSOLVENT  CORPORATION  TAXES. 

taxes  due  are  a  prior  lien  on  assets,  84. 

taxes  must  be  paid  whether  share  owners  get  dividends  or 
not,  84. 

INSOLVENT  ESTATE. 

taxes    due   on   property   of   insolvent   estate   are   payable   by 

receiver,   65. 
payment  to  be  made  out  of  any  fund  in  his  hands,  65. 

INTENT  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

settled  doctrine  that  in  construing  a  law  the  intent  of  the 
Legislature  should  prevail  and  be  followed,  73. 

INTEREST  BEARING  DEPOSITS  TAXABLE. 

deposits  of  cash  in  bank  (not  savings)  and  trust  companies 
are  assessable,  84. 


Index  239 

INTEREST  ON  TAX  BILLS. 

after  tax  bills  become  in  arrears,  they  bear  interest  at  6  per 
centum,  85. 

INVALIDITY  OF  ARBITRARY  EXEMPTION  LAWS. 

see  EXEMPTIONS  FROM  TAXATION,  67. 

exemption  of  property  belonging  to  a  particular  church, 
illegal,  86. 

declared  to  be  an  arbitrary  selection,  86. 

void  because  it  violates  Article  3  of  the  State  Constitution,  87. 

the  law  cannot  discriminate  in  the  laying  of  taxes,  87. 

unreasonable  classification  prohibited  by  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment, 87. 

• 

INVALIDITY  OF  STATUTE  GIVING  COUNTY  THE  TAXES 
ON  PERSONAL  SHARES. 

Legislature  cannot  give  to  county  all  taxes  on  shares  of  local 

corporation,  88. 
the  situs  of  each  share  of  stock  is  where  the  owner  resides,  88. 
any  other  method  violation  of  the  State  Constitution,  88. 
no   special   law   allowable    for   a   case   covered   by   a  general 
law,  88. 

ITEMIZING  STOCKS  OF  GOODS  NOT  REQUIRED. 

it  is  not  necessary  for  assessor  to  itemize  the  stock  in  trade, 

88. 
the  value  of  the  stock  is  the  proper  assessment  thereon,  88. 

JURISDICTION  OF  CIRCUIT  COURTS. 

they  have  no  power  to  enjoin  state  officials  beyond  their  cir- 
cuits, 89. 

parties  to  be  affected  must  be  within  court's  jurisdiction,  90. 

Circuit  courts  cannot  restrain  tax  officials  of  the  state  not  in 
their  county,  90. 

no  such  power  found  in  Constitution  or  statutes,  91. 

any  other  rule  would  cripple  efficiency  of  officials,  91. 

KERBSTONES. 

it  is  not  necessary,  nor  usual,  to  kerb  an  alley  as  a  boundary 

to  a  block,  29. 
streets    paved    with    vitrified    bricks    without   kerbstones,   are 

proper  boundaries,  29. 


240  Index 

LAND  UNDER  WATER. 

the  title  to  land  under  water  is  in  the  state,  91. 
not  subject  to  taxation,  91.' 

when  the  riparian  owner  reclaims  land  it  may  be  assessed  to 
him,  91-93. 

LANDED  PROPERTY. 

defined   to   be   real   estate,   whether   in    fee   simple,   leasehold, 
improved   or  unimproved,  92. 

LEGISLATIVE  LEVY. 

where  an   Act  prescribes  the  method  and  rate  of  bank  stock 

taxation,  it  is  a  legislative  levy,  21. 
assessments  may  be  made  by  legislative  -Act  as  well  as  by  tax 

officials,  15. 

LEGATEES  LIABLE. 

where  the  executor  fails  to  withold  the  collateral  inheritance 
tax,  the  state  may  recover  from  the  legatees.  37. 

"LEVY"  DE FINED. 

meaning  of  the  word  as  defined  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  92. 

LEVY  OF  TAXES  BY  DE  FACTO  OFFICIALS. 

acts  of  de  facto  tax  officials  valid.  93. 

tax  levy  made  by  such  officials  binding  on  taxpayers.  93. 

they  were  authorized  by  law  to  adopt  the  assessment  made  by 

state  officials,  94. 
not  necessary  to  appoint  persons  to  value  taxable  property,  94. 

LICENSE  TAXES. 

a  license  tax  is  a  tax  on  a  business,  not  on  property,  94. 

LIENS  FOR  TAXES. 

all   taxes   shall    be   liens  on    the   real    estate   of   persons  owing 

the  taxes,  94. 
taxes  are  not   a  lien  on  personal  property,  94. 

LIMITATIONS  MUST  BE  PLEADED. 

unless  the  four  year  limitation  on  taxes  is  plead,  the  lien  still 

exists,  95. 
and  the  collector   may  proceed  to  sell  the  property.  95. 


Index  241 

i 
LIST  OF  STOCKHOLDERS  BY  CORPORATIONS. 

see  STOCK  LISTS,  155. 

every  state  corporation  must  furnish  a  list  of  its  share  own- 
ers, 95-96. 

in  case  of  corporations  failure  to  so  furnish,  mandamus  may 
issue,  96. 

the  law  express  and  mandatory,  96. 

names,  residence  and  number  of  shares  respectively  owned 
must  be  furnished  tax  authorities,  96. 

purpose  of  the  law,  96. 

agreement  which  Appeal  Tax  Court  may  make  as  to  the 
stock  list,  96. 

LOCAL  ASSESSMENT  OF  CORPORATE  SHARES. 

counties  have  right  to  assess  all  corporate  property  that  have 
a  situs  therein,  97. 

situs  may  be  actual  or  constructive,  97. 

all  shares  assessable  in  county  in  which  corporation  has  prin- 
cipal office,  97. 

corporation  to  charge  same  to  accounts  of  respective  owners, 
98. 

LOCAL  IMPROVEMENT  ASSESSMENTS. 

legislative  power  to  lay  special  taxes  on  local  improvements, 

12. 
may  impose  assessment  for  roads  and  streets,  12. 
executed  consideration  for  a  public  work  may  be  assessed,  12. 

MACHINERY  OF  CORPORATIONS. 

the  machinery  of  a  corporation  is  not  taxable  as  part  of  the 
real  estate,  98. 

in  case  it  is  so  taxed,  mandamus  may  issue  for  aggrieved  tax- 
payer, 98. 

machinery  to  be  valued  as  a  part  of  the  aggregate  value  of 
shares,  98. 

MARKET  VALUE  OF  SHARES. 

market  price  a  fair  index  of  the  value  of  securities,  99. 

the    best    method    of    ascertaining    actual    value    of    current 

stocks,  99. 
true  of  all  stocks  quoted  on  the  stock  exchanges,  99. 


242  Index 

MARKET   VALUE  OF   SHARES— Continued. 

value  of  any  article  what  it  will  bring  at  a  fair  sale,  99. 
the  book  values  of  stocks  not  a    true  guide,  100. 

MORTGAGE  BONDS. 

,      mortgage   bonds   are   taxable  to  the  owners,   and  not  to  the 
corporation,  100. 

MORTGAGOR  TAXABLE  ON  MORTGAGED  PROPERTY, 
mortgaged  property  is  assessable  to  the  mortgagor,  100. 
tax  has  no  reference  to  mortgage  liens,  100. 

MORTGAGES  TO  SECURE  RAILROAD  BONDS. 

railroad  mortgage  to  secure  bonds  sold  to  investors  not  tax- 
able, 101. 

MUNICIPALITY  HAS  NO  POWER  TO  EXEMPT. 

a  city's  right  to  exempt  from  taxation  dependent  on  express 

legislative  authority,   102. 
no  power  to  make  contract  exempting  factory  for  fifty  years, 
102. 

MUNICIPALITY'S  SHARE  OF  STATE  SECURITY  TAX. 

a  municipal  corporation  in  a  county  is  entitled  to  one-half  of 
state  tax  on  resident  bond  owners,  102. 

NAVAL  ACADEMY  OFFICERS  EXEMPT. 

personal  property  of  officers  and  agents  of   Federal  govern- 
ment within  Naval  Academy  grounds  not  taxable,  68. 

NEW   IMPROVEMENTS   ASSESSABLE   ON    COMPLETION- 
new   improvements   become  assessable   for  the  ensuing  year, 
when   the   plastering   and   woodwork   have   been   substan- 
tially completed  before  October  1st,  104. 
improvements  on   real  estate  of  corporation  completed  prior 
to  January  1,  are  liable  to  taxation  for  the  ensuing  year, 

113. 

NEWLY  DISCOVERED  PROPERTY. 

may   be   assessed   after   the   prescribed   time    for   making   the 
annual  levy,  105. 


Index  243 

NO  ASSESSMENT  VOID. 

no  assessment  can  be  declared  void,  but  the  City  Court  must 
order  a  new  assessment,  105. 

NON-RESIDENT  GUARDIAN  AND  WARD. 

property  of  a  ward  is  taxable  in  the  county  where  guardian 

was  appointed,  106. 
property    taxable,    although    guardian    and    ward    reside    in 
another  county,  106. 

NORTHERN  CENTRAL  ROLLING  STOCK. 
assessable  in  Baltimore,  106. 

the  home  office  of  the  company  being  in  that  city,  106. 
assessable  not  as  real  estate,  but  as  personal  property,  106. 
its  situs  where  principal  office  is  situated,  106. 

NORTHERN  CENTRAL  GROSS  RECEIPT  TAX. 

the  Act  of  1890  repealed  the  exemption  from  payment  of 
gross  receipts  tax  granted  by  previous  Legislature  to 
Northern  Central  Railway,  38. 

NOTICE  AND  OPPORTUNITY  TO  BE  HEARD. 

owner  must  be  notified  before  he  is  assessed,  106.  . 

notice  by  written  or  printed  summons,  106. 

requirement  of   notice  contemplates   a  hearing   before   action 

by  tax  tribunal,  106. 
both  essential  to  the  validity  of  every  assessment,  107. 
a  rule  founded  on  national  justice.  107. 
a  certain  day  must  be  appointed  for  a  hearing,  108. 
notice  must  be  served  on  owner  or  left  at  his  place  of  abode 

ten  days  before  hearing,  109. 
if  owner  cannot  be  found,  notice  must  be  left  with  person  in 

possession,  109. 
if  it  be  land,  and  no  one  in  occupancy,  notice  must  be  posted 

on  land,  no. 
in  classifying  Annex  property  in  Baltimore,  "due  notice"  does 

not  mean  personal  service,  109. 
in  such  case,  a  notice  left  at  each  house  is  sufficient,  109. 
notice  is  not  necessary  where  the  Legislature  has  fixed  the 

amount  of  the  tax,   109. 


244  Index 

NOTICE  AND  OPPORTUNITY  TO  BE  HEARD— Continued. 
in   assessing  state  corporation   shares,  notice  to   the  corpor- 
ation is  sufficient,   108. 
notice  to  non-resident  share-holders  not  necessary,  108. 

OBLIGATIONS  OF  OTHER  STATES  TAXABLE. 

see  STATE'S  ONLY  TAXING  RESTRAINT,  154. 
obligations  of  other  states  are  taxable  in  Maryland,  III. 
though  exempt  in  the  states  where  issued.  III. 
contract  of  exemption  limited  to  the  state  granting  it,  in. 
property   of   owner    subject   to   powers   of    state   wherein   he 

resides,   ill. 
situs  of  such  stock  is  where  holder  has  his  domicile,  in. 
a  legislative  and  not  a  judicial  question,  in. 

OCTOBER  CLAUSE. 

in  Baltimore,  no  property,  other  than  corporate  property,  not 

subject  to  taxation  October  1,  can  enter  into  the  taxable 

basis  for  the  ensuing  year.  in. 
cannot  be  assessed,  though  it  become  subject  to  taxation  the 

next  day,  112. 
the  point  of  time  and  rule  of  law  arbitrary,  112. 
final  and  conclusive,  112. 

necessity  of  having  a  pointed  time  for  final  valuations,  112. 
does  not  include  escaped  or  omitted  property.   112. 

OMITTED  PROPERTY. 

see  ESCAPED  PROPERTY,  67. 

property   not  put  on   assessment  books   prior  to   annual   levy 

in   the   counties   may   be    subsequently   added    during   the 

current  year,   113. 
in  Baltimore  (under  charter  provision),  omitted  property  may 

be  assessed  for  back  taxes  when  discovered,  114. 
interest  and  penalties  shall  be  added  to  the  tax  bills  for  back 

years,  114. 

OPPORTUNITY  TO  BE  HEARD. 

opportunity  to  be  heard  is  essential  to  validity  of  every  assess- 
ment, 107. 
a  right  founded  on  fundamental  principle,  107. 
a  day  must  be  appointed  for  a  hearing.  108. 


Index  -545 

OPPORTUNITY    TO    BE   HEARD— Continued. 

a    written    or   printed    summons    necessary,   giving    ten    days' 

notice,   108. 
notice  rriust  be  personally  served  or  left  at  residence,  109. 
if  person  cannot  be  found,  notice  must  be  left  with  party  ia 

possession,   109. 

OWNERS  OF  SHARES  TAXED. 

the  tax  on  shares  is  a  tax  on  the  owners,  though  the  corpor- 
ation pays  the  tax,  40. 

OWNER  MAY  INSPECT  RECORDS. 

owners  shall,  at  all  times,  have  access  to  the  records  of  assess- 
ment on  their  property,  114. 

PALACE  AND  SLEEPING  CARS  NOT  TAXABLE  IN  MARY- 
LAND. 

such  cars  belong  to  an  Illinois  corporation,  and  not  assessable 

in  this  state,   115. 
question  definitely  setled  in  several  cases,  115. 

PARTIALLY   CHARITABLE   INSTITUTIONS   LIABLE   TO 
TAXATION. 

buildings  devoted  to  both  hospital  and  secular  purposes  sub- 
ject to  taxation,  116. 
net  income  may  be  capitalized  as  basis  of  assessment. 

PARTNERSHIPS  TO  BE  ASSESSED. 

a   partnership   should   be   assessed  in  the  firm   name  and  not 
individually,  76. 

PATENT    RIGHTS    THAT    CONSTITUTE    THE    BASIS    OF 
STOCK  VALUES, 
corporation    shares,    deriving   chiefly    from   patent    rights   are 

taxable,  116. 
value  of  patents  not  to  be  subtracted  from  value  of  shares, 

116. 
such  tax  not  in  violation  of  Federal  Constitution,  116. 

PAVING    TAX    LAWFUL    EXERCISE    OF    LEGISLATIVE 
POWER. 
Baltimore  special  paving  tax  Act  not  unconstitutional,  117. 
based  on  principle  of  benefit  to  abutting  property  owner,  117. 
not  void  because  tax  goes  into  a  general  paving  fund,  117. 


246  Index 

PAVING  TAX  ON  PROPERTY  NOT  ON  OWNER. 

a   paving  tax   in   Baltimore   is   imposed   on   property,   not   on 

owner,  117. 
the  city  may  maintain   a  legal  action  against  the  owner   for 
the  tax,  117. 

PENALTY  OF  EVASION. 

owners  of  bonds  or  other  evidence  of  debt   failing  to.  make 

return,  cannot  recover  until  taxes  are  paid,  117. 
liable    to    pay    50    per    centum    additional    from    time    taxes 
accrued,  117. 

PROPERTY  HELD  IN  TRUST  ASSESSED  AT  RESIDENCE 
OF  CESTUI  QUE  TRUST, 
constitutionality  of  Act  of  1902  upheld,  119. 
situs  of  property  held   in   trust  fixed  at   residence  of  bene- 
ficial owner,   119. 

PERSONAL   PROPERTY  OF  CEMETERY  COMPANY  TAX- 
ABLE, 
property  of  a  cemetery,  such  as  carts,  horses,  etc.,  is  subject 
to  assessment,  120. 

PERSONS,  NOT  PROPERTY,  TAXED, 
in  this  state  no  property  is  taxed,  120. 
all  assessment  against  the  person,  120. 
taxes  levied  not  on  things,  but  on  owners  of  things,  120. 
cannot  be  otherwise  under  Bill  of  Rights,  120. 

PIERS  EXTENDING  INTO  RIVER  BEYOND  CITY  LIMITS 
ARE  ASSESSABLE. 

limits  of  Baltimore  coincident  with  improvement  bounding  on 

river,  121. 
piers  of  no  value  if  without  right  to  use  land  in  Baltimore, 
121. 

are  taxable  by  the  city,   122. 

and  also  because  they  receive  fire  and  police  protection  from 
city,   121. 

POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS  IN 
THE  LEVYING  OF  TAXES, 
see  COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS  CANNOT  TAX  ROLL- 
ING STOCK,  49. 
COUNTY  COMMISSIONERS  TO  REFUND.  50. 


Index  247 

POWER  OF  APPEAL  TAX  COURT  TO  CLASSIFY. 

Appeal    Tax    Court    has   ample   authority   to   classify    annex 

property,   126. 
as  subject  to  the  full  city  rate,  126. 

when  developments  justify  under  Acts  of  1888  and  1892,  126. 
Appeal  Tax  Court  has   power  to  give  necessary  notice  and 

hearings  to  property  owners,  126. 

POWER  OF  LEGISLATURE  TO  EXEMPT. 

see  EXEMPTIONS  FROM  TAXATION,  67. 
the  Bill  of  Rights  no  bar  to  the  granting  of  exemptions.  126. 
Legislature  may  exempt  when  there  is  no  arbitrary  discrimi- 
nation, 126. 

PRIVATE  STREETS  AS  BOUNDARIES. 

not  essential  that  block  boundaries  shall  be  public  streets,  30. 
city  may  tax  block  bounded  by  private  thoroughfares,  30. 

PRIVATE  ALLEYS  ASSESSABLE. 

where  owner  conveys  part  of  land,  leaving  an  alley  for  com- 
mon use,  the  alley  is  assessable  to  grantor,  126. 
not  exempted  on  account  of  easement  on  it,  126. 

PROMISE  TO  PAY  TAXES  BARS  THE  FOUR-YEAR  LIMIT, 
taxes    uncollected    four   years   after   levy,    are   not   barred    if 

debtor  promises  to  pay. 
Collector  has  right  to  proceed  with  the  sale  of  the  property, 

127. 

PROPERTY  OF  WARD. 

the  property  of  a  ward  is  taxable  in  the  county  where  situ- 
ated, 106. 
taxable    there,    though    guardian    and    ward    live    in    another 
county,  106. 

PROPER  NOTICE  PRESUMED. 

in  complaints  by  aggrieved  taxpayer,  it  will  be  presumed  that 
proper  notice  was  given,  1. 

PUBLIC   IMPROVEMENTS   AND  TAXES   THEREON   LEFT 
TO  MUNICIPALITIES, 
see  ASSESSMENTS  FOR  SPECIAL  BENEFITS,   10. 
the  question  as  to  whether  paving  a  street  wilt  improve  prop- 
erty is  left  to  judgment  of  the  city,  127. 


248  Index 

PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  TAXES  THEREON  LEFT 
TO   MUNICIPALITIES— Continued. 

courts  have  no  authority  in  the  premises,   127. 

cannot  review  action  of  city  officials,   127. 

but  assessment  therefor  must  be  reasonable  and  equal,  127. 

when  they  fail  in  this  respect,  they  are  an  extortion.  127. 

the  presumption  is  that  those  assessed  are  benefited,  127. 

PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS  NOT  INVALID  BECAUSE  CON- 
TRACTORS DID  NOT  EXECUTE  CONTRACT  STRICTLY 
ACCORDING  TO  TERMS.  129. 

the  accomplishment  of  the  desired  object  is  the  vital  feature 

of  a  contract,  130. 
the   mere   mode   of   attaining   that   object    in   paving   a   street 

makes  no  practical  difference,  130. 
not  material  whether  stones  are  pressed  or  driven  to  a  solid 

foundation,  130. 
or  whether  a  rammer  or  steam  roller  is  used. 

PURPOSE  OF  THE  "LANDED  PROPERTY"  ACT  OF  1902, 
RELATING  TO  ANNEXED  TERRITORY. 

see  ANNEX  BLOCK  BOUNDARIES,  5. 

ANNEX   PROPERTY— WHEN  LIABLE  FOR  FULL 

CITY  RATE,  7. 
ANNEXATION  ACT  NOT  A  CONTRACT,  8. 
"BLOCK  OF  GROUND;'  24. 

landed    property    defined    to   be   real   estate   in    fee   simple   or 
leasehold,  improved  <>r  unimproved,    131. 

object   of   the   Act   was   to   prevent    full   city   rate  until    facts 
justified,  132. 

not  intended  to  affect  real  estate  that  was  already  city  prop- 
erty, 132. 

the   two   conditions   under   which    full   city   rate   may   be   im- 
posed, 132. 

RAILROAD  EXEMPTION  NOT  TRANSFERABLE, 
see  EXEMPTIONS  FROM  TAXATION,  67. 
an   exemption   from   taxation  of  a  railroad  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred to  another  corporation,   132. 


Index  249 

RAILROAD   ROLLING   STOCK   NOT    ASSESSABLE   WHEN 
ITS  PRINCIPPAL  OFFICE  IS  OUT  OF  STATE 

see  ROLLING  STOCK,  143. 

domicile  of   railroad  company   where   its  main  office  is   situ- 
ated,  133. 
taxable  situs  of  rolling  stock  cannot  be  elsewhere.  133. 
a  depot  and  station  in  Baltimore  does  not  establish  a  situs,  133. 

RAILROAD  MORTGAGES. 

railroad  mortgages  to  secure  bonds  sold  to  investors  are  not 
taxable,  103. 

RAILROAD  TAXABLE  AS  LESSEE. 

a  railroad   company  holding  a  90-year  lease  on   land  is  tax- 
able for  it,  133. 
company  is  substantial  owner  of  the  leasehold  interest,  134. 

RAILROAD  TUNNELS  AND  BRIDGES  NOT  SEPARATELY 
ASSESSABLE. 

tunnels  and  bridges  in  the  line  of  the  road  are  not  objects  of 

separate  valuation,   134. 
only  the  road  as  such  can  be  assessed,  134. 
and  the  part  in  the  tunnel  at  the  same  rate  as  other  parts,  134. 

REAL  ESTATE  OWNED  BY  STATE  CORPORATIONS. 

the   State   Tax   Commisisoner  properly   included   New  Jersey 

land  in   valuing  state  corporation  shares,  07. 
though  this  land  contributed  largely  to  the  value  of  the  stock. 

97- 

REAL   ESTATE   TO    BE    ASSESSED    AT   ACTUAL   VALUE 
WITHOUT   REGARD   TO   MORTGAGE  LIENS. 

mortgaged   real  estate  should  be  assessed  at  its  actual  value, 

135. 
mortgages  not  to  be  considered,   135. 
not  in  violation  of  Bill  of  Rights,  136. 

RECEIVER'S  LIABILITY  FOR  TAXES. 

when    property    is    under    equity    control,    the    ordinary    tax 

remedies  are  suspended, 
payment  can  only  be  secured  on  order  of  the  court,  135. 
collectors  should  apply  to  the  court  for  payment  of  taxes,  135. 


250  Index 

RECEIVER'S  LIABILITY  FOR  TAXES— Continued. 

when  he  fails  to  apply,  he  cannot  recover  penalty   from  the 
receiver,   135. 

RECEIVER  OF  INSOLVENT  ESTATE. 

it  is  the  duty  of  receiver  of  insolvent  estate  to  pay  taxes  out 
of  funds  in  his  hands,  65. 

RECLASSIFICATION  NOTICE. 

authority   of  the  Appeal   Tax   Court   to   increase   the   rate  in 

the  annex,  137. 

must  first  give  notice,  137. 

a  taxpayer  who  has  not  received  proper  notice  is  entitled  to 

an  injunction,  137. 
notice  does  not  mean  personal  service,  137. 
notices  left  at  each  house  is  sufficient,  137. 

RECOVERY   BY   TAXPAYER. 

when  taxes  are  improperly  paid  to  county  instead  of  city,  if 
latter  compels  second  payment,  taxpayer  may  recover 
from  county,  51. 

REFUNDING  TAXES  ERRONEOUSLY  PAID.      - 

statute   authorizes    County   Commissioners   to    refund    money 

erroneously  paid  as  taxes,  51. 
but  no  such  statute  applicable  to  Baltimore  city,  51. 

REGISTRATION  DOES  NOT  DETERMINE  RESIDENCE. 

the  sole  fact  that  a  person's  name  appears  on  the  registration 
list  does  not  determine  his  residence,  138. 

REMEDY  OF  AGGRIEVED  TAXPAYER. 

where  the  law  has  provided  an  adequate  remedy  for  aggrieved 
taxpayer,  equity  will  not  interfere,  64. 

"RESIDENCE"  AND  "DOMICILE." 

see  DOMICILE  THE  TEST  OF  TAXABILITY,  57. 
a  broad  distinction  between  the  two  words,  138. 
domicile  signifies  a  person's  civil  status  and  rights  of  prop- 
erty,  138. 
residence  is  a  qualification  for  political  rights,  138. 


Index  251 

RESIDENCE    IS    WHERE    ONE    RESIDES    THE    GREATER 
PART  OF  THE  YEAR. 

State  Constitution  so  provides,  i3<>. 
where  taxes  may  be  levied,  139. 

RESIDENCE  ISSUES  ARISING  IN  DECEDENTS'  ESTATES, 
a  will  must  be  probated  where  testator  resided.  139. 
the  right  to  admit  the  will  depends  on  residence. 

RESIDENCE  NOT  DEPENDENT  ON  INTENTION. 

a  change  of  residence  cannot  be  effected  by  intention  alone, 

140. 
a  declaration  of  intention  will  not  be  sufficient,   140. 
the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  party  claiming  to  have  made  a 

change,   141. 
temporary   absence,   though   long   extended,   will    not   deprive 

one  of  his  residence,  141. 

RESIDENCE   OF   CESTUI   QUE   TRUST   SITUS   FOR  TAX- 
ATION, 118. 

see  PERSONAL  PROPERTY  HELD  IN  TRUST  SHALL 
BE  ASSESSED  AT  RESIDENCE  OF  THE  CESTUI 
QUE  TRUST. 

RESIDENCE  OF  CORPORATIONS. 

a  corporation  is  a  resident  of  Hie  state  in  which  it  was  incor- 
porated,  141. 
must  be  treated  as  a  natural  person  would  be  who  resides  in 
such  state,  141. 

RESIDENCE  OF  STUDENTS. 

in   absence  of  other  proof,   the  law  presumes  that  students 
intend  to  return  to  their  former  residence,  142. 

RESIDENTS  WHO   REMOVE  AFTER  LEVY  ARE  ASSESS- 
ABLE. 

continued  residence  in  a  county  means  continued  liability  to 

taxation,  142. 
if  person   does  not   remove  before  the  levy  of  taxes,  he   if 
chargeable  for  that  year,  142. 


252  Index 

RIGHT  TO  ASSESS  FOR  PARTICULAR  BENEFITS. 

see    PAVING    TAX    LAW    A    VALID    EXERCISE    OF 

LEGISLATIVE  POWER,  116. 
special  benefit  assessments  sanctioned  in  all  the  states,  142. 
power  expressly  granted  to  the  City  of  Baltimore,  142. 

RIGHT  OF  TAXATION. 

the  right  of  taxation  is  never  presumed  to  be  relinquished  by 
the  state,  23. 

RIPARIAN  OWNER. 

a  person  owning  land  on  bank  of  stream  may  make  improve- 
ments into  the  water,  91. 
after  he  so  reclaims  the  land,  it  may  be  assessed  to  him,  91. 
until  he  so  does,  the  land  under  water  belongs  to  state,  and  is 
not  taxable,  91. 

ROLLING  STOCK  ASSESSMENTS. 

rolling  stock  of  railroads  assessable  where  its  leg?.l   situs,  is, 

143. 
to  be  divided  among  the  counties  and  City  of  Baltimore,  143. 
according  to  the  mileage  located  in  each,   143. 
State  Tax  Commission  shall  make  the  apportionment,  143. 
the  proportions  then   to  be  valued  in  Baltimore  and  in  each 

county,   143. 

SALES  AND  RENTALS. 

sales  and  rentals  in  neighborhood  to  be  considered  by  real 
estate  assessor,  79. 

information  received  from  others  may  be  used  in  fixing  valu- 
ations, 80. 

SAVINGS  BANK  TAX  A  TAX  ON  THE  FRANCHISE  AND 
NOT  ON  THE  PROPERTY  OF  BANKS. 

the  tax  on  savings  banks  not  an  arbitrary  burden,  144. 
not  a  tax  on  deposits,   144. 
but  on  the  bank  franchise,  144. 

Savings  bank  investmeint  in  securities  not  taxable,  144. 
deposits  invested  in  ground  rents  not  taxable,  145. 
money  deposits  in  foreign  savings  banks,  owned  by  residents, 
assessable  here,  145. 


Index  253 

SAVINGS  BANK  GROUND  RENTS  NOT  TAXABLE. 

the  deposits  in   savings  banks  invested  in  ground   rents  are 

not  taxable,  78. 
to  so  tax  them  would  be  imposing  a  double  tax,  78. 

SCHEDULES  OF  PERSONAL  PROPERTY. 

all  persons  obliged  to  give  account  of  their  personal  property 

when  required  by  the  tax  officials  of  city  of  county.  146. 
duty  of  authorities  to  make  assessment  on  best  information 
attainable,  146. 

SECURITIES  ASSESSABLE  AT  MARKET  VALUE. 

all  bonds  and  other  securities  to  be  assessed  at  market  value, 

146. 
taxes  in  corporate  stock  can  be  levied  only  on  valuations  by 
the  State  Tax  Commission,   T46. 

SECURITIES  OWNED  BY  SCHOOLS  NOT  EXEMPT. 

stocks  owned  by  a  school,  income  being  used   for  benefit  of 
students,  are  taxable,  147. 

SHARES    OF    STOCK    AND    OTHER    CORPORATE    PROP- 
ERTY SEPARATE  AND  DISTINCT. 

shares  and  property  of  state  corporations  may  both  be  taxed 
in  hands  of  respective  owners,  147. 

SHARES   OF   STOCK  AS   VALUED   BY  STATE  TAX  COM- 
MISSION BINDING  ON  COUNTIES  AND  CITIES. 

the  only  valuation  on  which  county  and  municipal  taxes  can 

be  levied,  148. 
each  shareholder  to  be  assessed  accordingly,  148. 
though  the  company  is  required  to  pay  the  tax,  148. 
and  to  charge  the  same  to  shareholders,  148. 
a  notice  to  each  shareholder  not  necessary,  149. 
such    requirement    would   make    annual    valuation   impossible, 

149. 
entry  of  names  of  shareholders  together  on  books,  149. 
sufficient  compliance  with  the  statute,  149. 


254  Index 

SINGLE  TAX  DECLARED  TO  BE  UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 
BECAUSE  OF  ITS  EXEMPTION  OF  PERSONAL  PROP- 
ERTY. 

contrary  to  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  150. 
which  requires  uniform  taxation  of  all  persons,  150. 
unlawful  to  impose  the  whole  tax  on  land,  150. 
the  land  would  cease  to  be  of  value,  150... 
exemption  of  personal  property  renders  such  a  law  null  and 
void.  150. 

SITUS  OF  PERSONAL  PROPERTY. 

the  situs  of  intangible  property  is  where  the  holder  lives,  150. 
shares  of  domestic  corporations  so  taxable,  151. 
goods  and  chattels  assessable  where  located,  151. 

SOVEREIGN  POWER  OF  TAXATION. 

annexation  Act  of  1888  a  grant  of  the  sovereign  power  of 
taxation  to  Baltimore  City,  8. 

SPECIAL  TAXES— POWER  OF  LEGISLATURE  TO  IMPOSE. 

cost  of  street  may  be  improved  in  whole  or  in  part  on  abutt- 
ing property,  151. 

municipalities  may  be  so  empowered,   151. 

act  cannot  be  defeated  on  ground  that  no  benefits  are  re- 
cevied,  151. 

the  front  foot  apportionment  approved,  152. 

STATE  AND  MUNICIPAL  TAXES, 
not  necesarily  on  same  basis,  152. 

arbitrary  state  valuations  not  to  govern  local  authorities,  152. 
"City  and  municipal  taxes"  not  confined  to  Baltimore,  152. 

STATE  TAX  COMMISSION. 

see    ACT    OF    19U    CREATING    THE    COMMISSION, 

APPENDIX  P.  191. 
to  equalize  assessments  throughout  the  state,  153. 
to  provide  for  review  of  all  property,  153. 
has  final  determination  of  assessments,  153. 
has  power  to  establish  units  for  assessing  property,  153. 
to  investigate  any  assessments  in  the  state,  153. 
to  have  access  to  all  assessment  books,  153. 
judgment  of  commission  shall  prevail,  154. 


Index  255 

STATE  TAX  COMMISSION— Continued. 

to  exercise  powers  and   perform   duties  of   former  commis- 
sioner, 154. 
will  be  board  of  appeal  on  questions  of  fact,  154. 
appeals  on  questions  of  law  to  be  taken  to  the  courts.  164. 

STATES  ONLY  TAXING  RESTRAINT. 

the  only  limitation  found  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  154. 
is  the  clause  prohibiting  the  laying  of  imports  and  duties,  or 
duty  on  tonnage,  154. 

SHIPS  AND  OTHER  VESSELS. 

»    see  VESSEL  ASSESSMENTS,  184. 

STATE'S  POLICY  IN  ASSESSING  REAL  ESTATE. 

to  assess  the  fee  simple  value  of  land  to  the  holder,  154. 
the  sub-divided  interests  not  to  be  separately  assessed,  154. 
those  holding  such  interests  must  adjust  between  themselves, 

155- 

STOCK  EXCHANGE  SEAT  NOT  ASSESSABLE. 

a  seat  on  the  Baltimore  Stock  Exchange  is  not  liable  to  as- 
sessment, 155. 
not  property  within  meaning  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  155. 

STOCK  LISTS. 

banks  and  corporations  must  furnish  stock  lists  before  March 

1,  155- 
containing  names  of  stockholders,   and  shares  and   residence 

of  each,  155. 
stock  of  no  corporation  to  be  valued  at  less  than  value  of 

real  estate  and  chattels,  153. 
real  estate  statement  must  be  filed  at  same  time,  156. 
stock  lists  not  to  be  disclosed,  156. 

STREETS  DEFINED. 

streets  fully  graded  and  paved,  156. 

STREET  RAILWAY  NOT  A  "RAILROAD." 

not  a  railroad  within  meaning  of  the  law,  156. 

a  corporation  that  must  pay  taxes  on  all  its  stock,  157- 


256  Int>ex 

SUITS  AGAINST  EXECUTORS. 

see  ADMINISTRATORS  AND  EXECUTORS,  3. 
executor  may  be  sued  for  taxes  where  he  resides  or  where  he 
obtains  administration,  157. 

SURETIES  RESPONSIBLE  FOR  TAXES. 

the   surety  of  a  guardian   is   responsible   for  taxes  levied  om 

ward's  property,  79. 
liability  continues  after  final  account  and   property  has  bee« 

delivered  to  the  ward,  79. 

TAX  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

must  describe  identity  of  property,  157. 
but  not  its  quality,  157. 

TAX  BOOKS  ACCESSIBLE  TO  ALL. 

tax  books  may  be  inspected  by  any  person  without  fee,  158. 

TAX  LAWS  TO  BE  CONSTRUED  LIBERALLY. 

should  be  interpreted  so  as  to  uphold  enactments.  160. 

TAX  LIMITATIONS. 

see     LIMITATIONS     AGAINST     TAXES     MUST     BE 
PLEADED.  95. 
TAXES   DUE    BY    TRUSTEES   NOT   BARRED   BY 
STATUTE  OF  LI  MI  AT  IONS.  164. 
collection   of   taxes    shall    not    be   enforced    after    four   years 
from  levy,  161. 

TAX  SALES. 

validity  of  sales  depends  on  compliance  witu  the  law,  161. 
collector  should  sell  only  enough  land  to  pay  taxes,  161. 
sale  of  a  farm  to  pay  insignificant  bill,  null  and  void,  161. 
collector  cannot  sell  till  he  has  made  levy,  162. 
a  sale  without  notice  is  void,  162. 

TAX  TITLES. 

complete  title  passes  to  purchaser  at  tax  sale,  162. 
all  previous  liens  are  extinguished  by  the  sale,  162. 

TAXATION  OF  PROPERTY  OWNED  BY  NON-RESIDENTS, 
see  DISTILLED  SPIRITS,  56. 
custodian  of  distilled  spirits  shall  pay  tax  for  owner,  163. 


Index  257 

TAXATION  OF  PROPERTY  OWNED  BY  NON-RESIDENTS 
Continued. 

whether  he  lives  in  or  out  of  state,  163. 
a  valid  exercise  of  taxing  power,  163. 

TAXES   DUE   BY   TRUSTEES   NOT   BARRED   BY   LIMITA- 
TION, 
the  four-year  limitation  does  not  apply  to  a  trust  estate,  165. 

TAXES  IN  ARREARS. 

taxes  are  in  arrears  January  I,  and  suit  to  collect  before  that 

time  cannot  be  maintained,  166. 
in   Baltimore,   all   taxes   in   arrears   on   July   1   next   ensuing 
levy,  167. 

TAXES  PAID  IN  ERROR  OF  LAW  NOT  REFUNDABLE. 

taxes  paid  under  a  mistake  of  law  cannot  be  recovered,  168. 
authority  of  County  Commissioners  in  case  of  erroneous  pay- 
ment, 169. 

TAXES  VOLUNTARILY  PAID  CANNOT  BE  RECOVERED. 

money  voluntarily  paid  cannot  be  recovered  on  plea  of  mis- 
take of  law,  171. 

scope  of  Baltimore  ordinance  authorizing  refunds,  T70. 

intent  thereof  to  refund  money  paid  under  mistake  of  fact, 
171. 

TAXING  POWER  OF  COUNTIES. 

have  no  inherent  power  of  taxation,  172. 
power  must  be  delegated  by  Legislature.  172. 

TAXABLE  VALUE  OF  CORPORATION. 

the  taxable  value  of  a  corporation  is  its  bonded  indebtedness, 
together  with  its  stock,  42. 

THE  ACT  OF  1888.  ANNEXING  CERTAIN  TERRITORY  TO 
BALTIMORE  CITY  NOT  A  CONTRACT,  172. 
see  ANNEXATION  ACT  NOT  A  CONTRACT,  8. 

THIRTY  AND  FIFTEEN-CENT  SECURITY  TAX. 
see  ACT  OF  191U,  APPENDIX,  p.  204. 
rate  of  taxing  bonds  and  other  evidences  of  debt,  175. 
non-dividend  paying  securities  not  assessable,  176. 


258  Index 

TIME  AT  WHICH   CORPORATE  REAL  ESTATE  MAY  BE 
ASSESSED, 
see  OCTOBER  ''FINAL  AND  CONCLUSIVE"  CLAUSE, 

III. 

improvements  completed  before  January  t,  are  taxable,  180. 
though  not  assessed  to  corporation  previously  to  October  i, 
180. 

TIME    OF   ASSESSMENT    OF    DOMESTIC    CORPORATION 
SHARES. 
Tax  Commissioner  shall  assess  such  shares  by  May  1st  as  of 

January  ist  preceding,  180. 
reports  required  of  state  corporations,  180. 

TOWNS  MAY  ADOPT  ASSESSMENTS. 

levy  made  by  town  officials  on  state  and  county  assessments 
is  legal,  94. 

nothing  in  the  law  to  forbid  them  from  adopting  such  valu- 
ations, 94. 

not  necessary  to  appoint  persons  to  assess  property  subject 
to  taxation,  94. 

TRUE  TEST  OF  TAXABLE  VALUE. 

the  true  test  of  taxable  value  of  a  security  is  the  producing 
value  to  the  owner,  181. 

TRUST  ESTATE  ASSESSABLE  AT  RESIDENCE  OF  BENE- 
FICIAL OWNER. 

residences  of  the  cestui  que  trust  the  situs  for  taxation,  182. 
securities  in  trust  treated  as  belonging  to  substantial  owners, 
182. 

TRUSTEE  FOR  CREDITORS. 

trustee  bound  for  taxes  on  property  in  his  possession,  182. 
but  not  on  all  taxes  due  by  debtor,  182. 

TRUSTEES  LIVING  IN  DIFFERENT  COUNTIES. 

the  property  taxable  to  each  in  equal  proportions,  183. 

TURNPIKES  AS  BOUNDARIES. 
see  BOUNDARIES,  27. 

in  classifying  property  in  the  Annex,  a  turnpike  may  be  used 
as  a  boundary,   182. 


Index  259 

UNLAWFUL  LEVY. 

Court  of  Equity  will  restrain  levy  of  illegal  taxes,  65. 
any  taxpayer  entitled  to  seek  relief  from  unauthorized  levy, 
65. 

UNISSUED  SHARES  NOT  LIABLE  TO  ASSESSMENT, 
no  authority  for  taxing  shares  of  stock  not  issued,  183. 
such  stock  has  no  existence  and  no  value,  183. 

VESSEL  ASSESSMENTS. 

all  interest  in  ships  and  other  vessels  assessable  to  owners  at 

residence,  184. 
interest  taxable,  though  engaged  in  foreign  commerce,  184. 
vessel  has  no  situs'  apart  from  domicile  of  owner,  185. 
if  agent  in  state  represents  foreign  owner,  ships  are  taxable 

here,  185. 
ships  at  sea  taxable  at  home  of  owner,  185. 

UNITED    RAILWAYS    PARK    TAX    A    SUBSTITUTE    FOR 
TAXATION  ON  EASEMENT. 

no  further  assessment  than  park  tax  is  legal,  187. 
except  as  to  certain  easements  on  turnpikes,  etc.,  187. 

VALIDITY    OF    VERBAL    ORDER    OF    COUNTY    COMMIS- 
SIONERS, 
verbal    order    of    commissioners    to    collector    to    pay    money 

valid,  187. 
when  collector  fails  to  pay,  sureties  on  his  bond  held  liable, 
187. 

VALUATION     OF     SHARES     BY     TAX     COMMISSIONER 
FINAL, 
valuations  of  shares  by  Tax  Commissioner  final,   18& 
even  if  there  was  error,  courts  cannot  interfere,  188. 
unless  it  be  shown  property  is  exempt,  188. 

WARD'S  PROPERTY  IN  POSSESSION  OF  FOREIGN  GUAR- 
DIAN, 
personal  property  of  a  ward  in  the  hands  of  guardian  out  of 
the  state  not  taxavle,  188. 


260  Index 

WAREHOUSEMAN'S  LIEN. 

a  warehouseman  or  other  custodian  paying  tax  on  distilled 

spirits,  has  lien  on  same,  57. 
may  hold  goods  until  he  has  secured  repayment,  57. 

WESTERN   MARYLAND  R.   R.  ROLLING  STOCK  ASSESS- 
ABLE IN  BALTIMORE, 
all  the  rolling  stock  of  the  company  taxable  in  Baltimore,  188. 
the  principal  office  and  depot  being  in  that  city 
not  legal  to  distribute  the  value  along  entire  line,  189. 
also  assessable  on  leasehold  interests  it  possesses,  189. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  < 

DN  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

30ml 

■J 


^4 


/ 


313156 


HJ  3 


/j 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


